LA Vets..

[ak1971]

post your serv here...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

CO swift boaters/chickenhawks:

Post your reasons for not serving/volunteering for Iraq here.

While you're at it, post your SSAN and mother's maiden name.

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/therealhijackers.jpg
The real hijackers

[DBruleU]

CO swift boaters/chickenhawks:

Post your reasons for not serving/volunteering for Iraq here.

While you're at it, post your SSAN and mother's maiden name.

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/therealhijackers.jpg
The real hijackers

All volunteer military. Going to college. Not in my plans for my life.

Now, LABF, since this is a "LA Vets" thread, why not post yours?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

All volunteer military. Going to college. Not in my plans for my life.

Your reason for not fighting in Bush's grudge match (Iraq) is because we don't have a draft? How convenient.

You can go to school and get married after you do your part for the cause if you really believe in it.

[Spider]

Your reason for not fighting in Bush's grudge match (Iraq) is because we don't have a draft? How convenient.

You can go to school and get married after you do your part for the cause if you really believe in it.
you know how it is now days . you can run around support a war , not fight in it .let other people go die and fight or a war you believe in ... Not to many people with Balls to stand up or what they believe in ...............
Operation Yellow elephant .......

[defenseman]

This is absolutely a very idiotic question and angle. It's volunteer only. JUST because one agrees with the war doesn't mean they have to take up arms. JUST LIKE, just because one disagrees with the war, doesn't mean they should move out of the country. Though I'm wishing a few would, the ones that "rah rah" for the terrorists need to leave...dman

[Spider]

This is absolutely a very idiotic question and angle. It's volunteer only. JUST because one agrees with the war doesn't mean they have to take up arms. JUST LIKE, just because one disagrees with the war, doesn't mean they should move out of the country. Though I'm wishing a few would, the ones that "rah rah" for the terrorists need to leave...dman
Iam old school . if I believe in somthing , I join the cause , actions speak louder then words , specialy in a war ...... and here lies the problem , to many yellow elephants oh we support the war , but we are too important to die for it ...
let other people go fight for what we believe in ..
as for leaving the country , that isnt America nor what she stands for , if you believe in our great country , what we have stood for , for 200+ years , then you understand what freedom is ...... Thats what makes our military so damn special , they lay it all on the line for Freedom ... even for the Democrats ....brave men and Women have spilled blood for freedom .....

[defenseman]

Iam old school . if I believe in somthing , I join the cause , actions speak louder then words , specialy in a war ...... and here lies the problem , to many yellow elephants oh we support the war , but we are too important to die for it ...
let other people go fight for what we believe in ..
as for leaving the country , that isnt America nor what she stands for , if you believe in our great country , what we have stood for , for 200+ years , then you understand what freedom is ...... Thats what makes our military so damn special , they lay it all on the line for Freedom ... even for the Democrats ....brave men and Women have spilled blood for freedom .....

Too many donkeys said , "yeah, I support" then they commenced to trash the war. Screw the donkeys too. And you'll find a way to justify it, I'm sure.
Freedom is freedom. NO ONE has to cowboy up and join unless they want to , simple as that. AND, it does allow them to have an opinion that supports the war, another simple fact. Too belittle them, based on their opinion of support for the war, and not going out and joining, well it's just plain screwed up. FREEDOM is what it is, FREEDOM. Old School has absolutely nothing to do with it. Yeah, I'm old school but smart enough to know that I'll be labeled a dinosaur in many arenas if I adopt that approach. The times , they are a changin....if you know what I mean. You can still be old school, but the delivery "HAS" to change or no fish will bite...dman

[Spider]

Too many donkeys said , "yeah, I support" then they commenced to trash the war. Screw the donkeys too. And you'll find a way to justify it, I'm sure.
trash the war or the way the war has been ran , and the lies that led up to it .. dont you find it odd that there wasnt this fighting going on when we was invading Afghanistan , Bush had 80% approval rating ? ...... or didnt you pick up on that ?
Freedom is freedom. NO ONE has to cowboy up and join unless they want to , simple as that. AND, it does allow them to have an opinion that supports the war, another simple fact. Too belittle them, based on their opinion of support for the war, and not going out and joining, well it's just plain screwed up. FREEDOM is what it is, FREEDOM. Old School has absolutely nothing to do with it. Yeah, I'm old school but smart enough to know that I'll be labeled a dinosaur in many arenas if I adopt that approach. The times , they are a changin....if you know what I mean. You can still be old school, but the delivery "HAS" to change or no fish will bite...dman
Sure , run the pie hole dont back it up ...... talk all the support you want , but sit on your fat áss when it comes to action ....this is the attitude that made America greatUhh

[spdirty]

For me it was all about timing. I did my time, and got out in December of '02. A couple reasons why I did, first, my old mans company, he was the president of a 1 man company, it was extremely tough for him to bull**** the guys to get the work, do the work, bill the companys, then hassle them to get his money. He needed help from someone who was reliable. And I wanted to help him. Pretty much owed it to him. Second, I kind of had a grudge against the AF for about the last year of my enlistment because I got screwed over and was more or less forced to sign an Article 15. I didn't have much respect for the base commander, our squadron chief, our flight chief, or the flight commander and I wanted out of that situation to go help the old man and have a better chance of being very well off by the time Im 38 (the age at which Id be able to retire). If you guys want to call me a chickenhawk, fine, I don't really care. I just know that I did volunteer 4 years of my life to do probably the crappiest job in the AF...security forces. And if called upon to go over there Id go in a second to help those guys out. Hell, still have 6 months left in the inactive reserve, so it might happen, probably not though.

[Spider]

too many people dont want to sacrafice .....My Dad believed in the Nam war before he got there , came back with a different tude .......but he did his part ...

[defenseman]

While I believe military service would be helpful to most, the volunteer military is what it is, volunteer. I bear no ill will toward anyone who is against or for the war, who decides not to serve in the military. It's their right not to join..dman

[Spider]

While I believe military service would be helpful to most, the volunteer military is what it is, volunteer. I bear no ill will toward anyone who is against or for the war, who decides not to serve in the military. It's their right not to join..dman
well if you are against the war , doesnt make much sence to sign up .......
I dont know when cowardice became cool in this country , but we are surrounded by it ........ I live in Wyoming , work close with the oil field , My opinion doesnt change , if they dont like it , they can kiss my áss ...... too many people will fold , become yes men .... yes takes the place of a backbone .....

[Traveler]

For me it was all about timing. I did my time, and got out in December of '02. A couple reasons why I did, first, my old mans company, he was the president of a 1 man company, it was extremely tough for him to bull**** the guys to get the work, do the work, bill the companys, then hassle them to get his money. He needed help from someone who was reliable. And I wanted to help him. Pretty much owed it to him. Second, I kind of had a grudge against the AF for about the last year of my enlistment because I got screwed over and was more or less forced to sign an Article 15. I didn't have much respect for the base commander, our squadron chief, our flight chief, or the flight commander and I wanted out of that situation to go help the old man and have a better chance of being very well off by the time Im 38 (the age at which Id be able to retire). If you guys want to call me a chickenhawk, fine, I don't really care. I just know that I did volunteer 4 years of my life to do probably the crappiest job in the AF...security forces. And if called upon to go over there Id go in a second to help those guys out. Hell, still have 6 months left in the inactive reserve, so it might happen, probably not though.

I for one don't consider you a chickenhawk. At least you had the sack to volunteer. Let me also say I also disagree with most of your views about this war and this President.

That said, the term chickenhawk only applies to all those who did whatever they could to avoid going to Vietnam or avoided volunteering for active duty(almost all of Bush's entire Cabinet), and presently act like they know what going war entails. But that's JMO.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I for one don't consider you a chickenhawk. At least you had the sack to volunteer. Let me also say I also disagree with most of your views about this war and this President.

That said, the term chickenhawk only applies to all those who did whatever they could to avoid going to Vietnam or avoided volunteering for active duty(almost all of Bush's entire Cabinet), and presently act like they know what going war entails. But that's JMO. Yeah, dirty served his country and did his part, he's just confused by the current admin somewhat.

[defenseman]

I for one don't consider you a chickenhawk. At least you had the sack to volunteer. Let me also say I also disagree with most of your views about this war and this President.

That said, the term chickenhawk only applies to all those who did whatever they could to avoid going to Vietnam or avoided volunteering for active duty(almost all of Bush's entire Cabinet), and presently act like they know what going war entails. But that's JMO.

You could say the same about numerous politicians on both sides of the aisle since we are opening the umbrella only part way...dman

[Traveler]

You could say the same about numerous politicians on both sides of the aisle since we are opening the umbrella only part way...dman


True! Thus, the part of the paragraph where I said, "the term chickenhawk only applies to all those who did whatever they could to avoid going to Vietnam or avoided volunteering for active duty".

[defenseman]

True! Thus, the part of the paragraph where I said, "the term chickenhawk only applies to all those who did whatever they could to avoid going to Vietnam or avoided volunteering for active duty".

Thanks.....dman. I missed that, reading to damn fast again...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You could say the same about numerous politicians on both sides of the aisle since we are opening the umbrella only part way...dman
Opening it all the way, I think you'll find current republicans dominate this topic.

[defenseman]

Opening it all the way, I think you'll find current republicans dominate this topic.

I wouldn't make that ASSUMPTION.....dman

[DBruleU]

Your reason for not fighting in Bush's grudge match (Iraq) is because we don't have a draft? How convenient.

You can go to school and get married after you do your part for the cause if you really believe in it.

It is convenient. Why do I need to fight? Just becuase I support it? I supprt football, but I dont play in the NFL. This notion that I must somehow fight just because I support it, is stupid.

Where is LABF by the way? This thread is all about vet status, and he doesnt take the oppurtunity to put himself on a tier above me? C'mon, I'm waiting.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It is convenient. Why do I need to fight? Just becuase I support it?

Because you believe that the war in Iraq is about defending the homeland.


I supprt football, but I dont play in the NFL.

Crappy analogy.

The Broncos won't take you, but the Army probably will.

Where is LABF by the way? This thread is all about vet status, and he doesnt take the oppurtunity to put himself on a tier above me?

Look at the bright side: At least you're a swift boat vet.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I wouldn't make that ASSUMPTION.....dman No assumption and it's easy to reference, do you want to debate it?

It is convenient. Why do I need to fight? Just becuase I support it? I supprt football, but I dont play in the NFL. This notion that I must somehow fight just because I support it, is stupid.
. Actually I believe you are afraid to fight for the Bush regime lies with your life but I don't blame you.

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=Bronco_Beerslug]No assumption and it's easy to reference, do you want to debate it?

Not really, you brought it up. Feel free to dig up the "facts" and we'll all have a gander. As long as there facts, I've got no argument with any sort of proof proving or disproving. Don't leave any stones unturned though, wouldn't want to "slant" the audience now would we..dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

[QUOTE=Bronco_Beerslug]No assumption and it's easy to reference, do you want to debate it?

Not really, dman

Either you do or you don't. If you want to qualify your "not really" then your debating it.

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=defenseman]

Either you do or you don't. If you want to qualify your "not really" then your debating it.

Provide your data, and we can talk about it. That would be "no kidding" good data. I can only assume, that, since the can is open, you have some data in your back pocket. Feel free to supply...dman

[Spider]

Provide your data, and we can talk about it. That would be "no kidding" good data. I can only assume, that, since the can is open, you have some data in your back pocket. Feel free to supply...dman
ok ...... today is payday ....... my Data , my wife is actually nice to me , pretty normal for pay days and such ;D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

[QUOTE=Bronco_Beerslug]

Provide your data, and we can talk about it. That would be "no kidding" good data. I can only assume, that, since the can is open, you have some data in your back pocket. Feel free to supply...dman

Ok, take a look...


Republicans --
* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; got assigned to Alabama so he could campaign for family friend running for U.S. Senate; failed to show up for required medical exam, disappeared from duty.
* B-1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.
* Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a non-combat role making movies.

Democrats:
* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor,Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt.,Army 1948-52; Bronze star,Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve,1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam,DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart,Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne,Purple Heart.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII.

http://tinyurl.com/qupbl

[TailgateNut]

AAH, the eerie silence!

BTW: nice closing Quote!

[defenseman]

AAH, the eerie silence!

BTW: nice closing Quote!

Have some stats on the 108th congress for ya......

Representatives with military service
108th Congress

Congressional Info Military
New Service -- Dates -- Length Cmbt Retiree
Last name First name Mbr Party State Dist AD Res From To of Srvc Rank Vet AD Res
Akin Todd R MO 2 A 72 80 8 2nd. Lt.
Alexander Rodney Y D LA 5 AFR 65 71 6 SSgt.
Baca Joe D CA 43 A 66 68 2 Spec. 4 Y
Bachus Spencer R AL 6 AG 69 71 2 E-3
Balance, Jr. Frank W. Y D NC 1 AG 68 71 3 E-2
Ballenger Cass R NC 10 N 44 45 1 Avtn. Cadet
Barrett J. Gresham Y R SC 3 A 83 87 4 Capt.
Bereuter Doug R NE 1 A 63 65 2 1st Lt.
Bilirakis Michael R FL 9 AF 51 55 4
Bishop, Jr. Sanford D. R GA 2 A 69 71 2
Boehlert Sherwood R NY 24 A 56 58 2 Spec. 3
Boehner John A. R OH 8 N 68 68 0
Boswell Leonard L. D IA 3 A 56 76 20 Lt. Col. Y Y
Boyd Allen D FL 2 A 69 71 2 1st. Lt. Y
Brown Henry E. R SC 1 AG 53 62 9 Sgt.
Burns Max Y R GA 12 AR 73 81 8 1st Lt.
Burton Dan R IN 5 A 56 57 1 Pvt.
AR 57 62 5
Buyer Steve R IN 4 AR 80 84 4 Capt. Y
A 84 87 3 Capt.
AR 87 Pres 16 Lt. Col.
Clay William L. D MO 1 A 53 55 2 Pvt.
Coble Howard R NC 6 CG 52 56 4 Y
CGR 60 82 22 Capt. Y
Collins Mac R GA 8 AG 64 70 6 E-4
Conyers Jr. John D MI 14 AG 48 52 4 Y
A 52 54 2
AR 54 57 3
Cramer Robert E. (Bud) D AL 5 A 72 73 1 2nd Lt.
AR 76 78 2 Capt.
Crane Philip M. R IL 8 A 54 56 2 Cpl.
Cunningham Randy "Duke" R CA 50 N 66 87 21 Cmdr. Y Y
Davis III Thomas M. R VA 11 A 71 72 1 2nd Lt.
AR 72 79 7 1stLt.
Deal Nathan D GA 10 A 66 68 2 Capt.
DeFazio Peter A. D OR 4 AF 67 71 4 Lt.
Delahunt William D. D MA 10 CGR 63 71 8
Dingell John D. D MI 15 A 44 46 2 2nd Lt. Y
Duncan, Jr. John J. "Jimmy" R TN 2 AG 70 87 17 Capt.
Etheridge Bob D NC 2 A 65 67 2 E-4
Evans Lane D IL 17 MC 69 71 2 Lance Cpl.
Everett Terry R AL 2 AF 55 59 4 Amn. 1st
Fletcher Ernie R KY 6 AF 74 80 6 Capt.
Frelinghuysen Rodney R NJ 11 A 69 71 2 Pvt. Y
Frost Martin D TX 24 AR 66 72 6
Gephardt Richard A. D MO 3 ANG 65 71 6
Gibbons Jim R NV 2 AF 67 71 4 Capt. Y
ANG 75 96 21 Col. Y
Gilchrest Wayne T. R MD 1 MC 64 68 4 Sgt. Y
Gillmor Paul E. R OH 5 AF 65 66 1 Capt.
Gonzales Charlie D TX 20 ANG 69 75 6 Tech. Sgt.
Goode, Jr. Virgil H. D VA 5 AG 69 75 6 Spec. 5
Gordon Bart D TN 6 AR 71 72 1
Goss Porter J. R FL 14 A 60 62 2 1st Lt.
Hall Ralph M. D TX 4 N 42 45 3 Lt. Y
Hastings Richard "Doc" R WA 4 A 63 64 1
AR 64 69 5 Spec. 4
Hinchey Maurice D. D NY 22 N 56 59 3 Seaman
Hobson David L. R OH 7 ANG 58 63 5
Hoeffel Joseph M. D PA 13 AR 70 76 6 E-4
Houghton Amo R NY 29 MC 45 46 1 Pfc.
Hunter Duncan R CA 52 A 69 71 2 Lt. Y
Hyde Henry J. R IL 6 N 42 46 4 Ensign Y
NR 46 68 22 Cmdr. Y
Isakson Johnny R GA 6 AF 66 67 1
ANG 67 72 5 MSgt.
Issa Darrell R CA 49 A 70 72 2 Pvt.
A 76 80 4 Capt.
AR 80 88 8 Capt.
Janklow William J. Y R SD 1 MC 56 59 3 Pfc. Y
Jefferson William J. D LA 2 A 69 75 6 Capt.
Jenkins William L. R TN 1 A 59 60 1 2nd Lt.
AR 60 69 9 Capt.
Johnson Sam R TX 3 AF 51 79 28 Col. Y Y
Jones Jr. Walter B. R NC 3 AG 67 71 4 Enl.
Kanjorski Paul E. D PA 11 A 60 61 1
King Peter T. R NY 3 AG 68 73 5 Spec. 5
Kirk Mark Steven R IL 10 NR 89 Pres 14 Lt. Cmdr. Y
Kleczka Gerald D. D WI 4 ANG 63 69 6 Sgt.
Kline John Y R MN 2 MC 69 94 25 Col. Y Y
Knollenberg Joe R MI 9 A 55 57 2 Cpl.
Kolbe Jim R AZ 8 N 68 69 1 Y
NR 69 77 8 Lt. Cmdr.
Lewis Ron R KY 2 N 72 72 0
Linder John R GA 7 AF 67 69 2 Capt.
Lipinski William O. D IL 3 AR 61 67 6 SSgt.
Lucas Kenneth D KY 4 AF 55 57 2
ANG 57 67 10 Major
Markey Edward J. D MA 7 AR 68 73 5
Marshall James C. Y D GA 3 A 68 70 2 Sgt. Y
McDermott Jim D WA 7 N 68 70 2 Lt. Cmdr.
Miller Gary G. R CA 42 A 67 68 1 Pvt.
Mollohan Alan B. D WV 1 AR 70 83 13 Capt.
Moore Dennis D KS 3 A 70 70 0 2nd Lt.
AR 70 73 3 Capt.
Murtha John P. D PA 12 MC 52 55 3 Lt. Y
MC 66 67 1 Maj.
MCR 67 90 23 Col. Y
Norwood Charlie R GA 9 A 67 69 2 Capt. Y
Ortiz Solomon P. D TX 27 A 60 62 2 Spec.
Osborne Tom R NE 3 AG 60 66 6 Sgt.
Otter C. L. "Butch" R ID 1 AG 67 73 6 Spec.
Pascrell, Jr. William J. D NJ 8 A 61 62 1
AR 62 67 5 E-5
Paul Ron R TX 14 AF 63 65 2
ANG 65 68 3 Capt.
Pearce Steve Y R NM 2 AF 71 76 5 Capt. Y
Peterson Collin C. D MN 7 AG 63 69 6 SSgt.
Peterson John E. R PA 5 AR 58 64 6 Spec. 2
Pitts Joseph R. R PA 16 AF 63 69 6 Capt. Y
Ramstad Jim R MN 3 AR 68 74 6 1st Lt.
Rangel Charles B. D NY 15 A 48 52 4 SSgt. Y
Regula Ralph R OH 16 N 44 46 2 Seaman
Reyes Silvestre D TX 16 A 66 68 2 E-5 Y
Reynolds Thomas R NY 26 ANG 70 76 6 Sgt.
Rogers Harold R KY 5 AG 57 64 7
Rogers Mike R MI 8 A 85 88 3 1st Lt.
Rush Bobby L. D IL 1 A 63 68 5 Pvt.
Schrock Edward R VA 2 N 64 88 24 Capt. Y Y
Scott Robert C. D VA 3 AR 70 74 4
AG 74 76 2
Serrano Jose E. D NY 16 A 64 66 2
Shadegg John R AZ 3 ANG 69 75 6
Sherwood Donald L. R PA 10 A 64 66 2 1stLt.
Shimkus John M. R IL 19 A 80 86 6 Capt.
AR 86 Pres 17 Lt. Col.
Simmons Rob R CT 2 A 65 68 3 1st Lt. Y
AR 1970 2000 30 Col. Y
Smith Nick R MI 7 AF 59 61 2 Capt.
Snyder Victor F. D AR 2 MC 67 69 2 Cpl. Y
Spratt Jr. John M. D SC 5 A 69 71 2 Capt.
Stark Pete D CA 13 AF 55 57 2 Capt.
Stearns Cliff R FL 6 AF 63 67 4 Capt.
Tanner John D TN 8 N 68 72 4 Lt.
AG 1974 2000 26 Col. Y
Taylor Gene D MS 4 CGR 71 84 13 E-6
Thompson Mike D CA 1 A 69 73 4 SSgt. Y
Towns Ed D NY 10 A 56 58 2
Turner Jim D TX 2 A 70 78 8 Capt.
Weldon Dave R FL 15 A 81 87 6 Major
AR 87 92 5 Major
Whitfield Edward R KY 1 AR 67 73 6 Lt.
Wicker Roger R MS 1 AF 76 80 4 Capt.
AFR 80 Pres 23 Lt. Col.
Wilson Heather R NM 1 AF 82 89 7 Capt.
Wilson Joe R SC 2 AR 72 75 3
AG 75 Pres 28 Col.
Wolf Frank R. R VA 10 A 62 63 1
AR 63 67 4 Enlisted
Young C.W. Bill R FL 10 AG 48 57 9
Young Don R AK 1 A 55 57 2

Total 121 8 86 59 30 5 5

Back to Veterans in Congress

About the Chairman | About the Committee | Committee News | Hearings | Legislation |
Veterans' Information | Governmental Links | Democrat's Home Page | Contact the Committee

I'll try to post a link, in any case , the 108th congress breakdown is as best as i can determine the following:

Republicans: 54 served on AD in the various military branches
18 served in a reserve or National guard status ONLY.

Democrats: 31 served on AD in the various military branches
17 served in a reserve or National guard status ONLY.

I'll get back to ya with more when able. Hand counted as best I could to support the numbers vice just accepting. Get back at ya...dman

http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/vetsincongress.html

Found it. above is the link....be back soon..dman

[55CrushEm]

Too funny....look at Slug's list....he put as many Repubs as he could find that DIDN'T serve, and as many Dems he could find that DID serve....LOL

Now let's break this down. At a quick glance, he has 25 Dems that served (Clinton did not, but he's making excuses).....now we can see that not all are CURRENT members of government.....but let's say they are, so that the flip side, his number of NON-serving Dems is as low as possible. Assuming that these 25 Dems are all current members of Congress....and since there are 245 Dems in Congress (201 House, 44 Senate)....that would mean that 220 did not serve.

Now.....take the Repubs....he has, I think, 35 names.....that did NOT serve....but clearly there are people at state level, people no longer in government, etc.....but again, lets assume that they are ALL current members of Congress to MINIMIZE the SERVING number of Repubs......(you can see I'm giving him the "benefit" on both sides of the argument).....

Since there are 287 Repubs in Congress (232 House, 55 Senate)....that would mean......252 DID SERVE.

Now, I know this isn't the case, and that my numbers are flawed as well....but given Bubba_Slug's endless efforts to dig up every article he can, one can assume he did go to great length's to find every member he could......

So ultimately, IF his attempt was to show that more Dems have served in the military than Repubs (BTW, I have no idea if this is the case or not).....he failed miserably, given the data he supplied......

Try again, Bubba_Slug.....

[Traveler]

Have some stats on the 108th congress for ya......

Representatives with military service
108th Congress

Congressional Info Military
New Service -- Dates -- Length Cmbt Retiree
Last name First name Mbr Party State Dist AD Res From To of Srvc Rank Vet AD Res
Akin Todd R MO 2 A 72 80 8 2nd. Lt.
Alexander Rodney Y D LA 5 AFR 65 71 6 SSgt.
Baca Joe D CA 43 A 66 68 2 Spec. 4 Y
Bachus Spencer R AL 6 AG 69 71 2 E-3
Balance, Jr. Frank W. Y D NC 1 AG 68 71 3 E-2
Ballenger Cass R NC 10 N 44 45 1 Avtn. Cadet
Barrett J. Gresham Y R SC 3 A 83 87 4 Capt.
Bereuter Doug R NE 1 A 63 65 2 1st Lt.
Bilirakis Michael R FL 9 AF 51 55 4
Bishop, Jr. Sanford D. R GA 2 A 69 71 2
Boehlert Sherwood R NY 24 A 56 58 2 Spec. 3
Boehner John A. R OH 8 N 68 68 0
Boswell Leonard L. D IA 3 A 56 76 20 Lt. Col. Y Y
Boyd Allen D FL 2 A 69 71 2 1st. Lt. Y
Brown Henry E. R SC 1 AG 53 62 9 Sgt.
Burns Max Y R GA 12 AR 73 81 8 1st Lt.
Burton Dan R IN 5 A 56 57 1 Pvt.
AR 57 62 5
Buyer Steve R IN 4 AR 80 84 4 Capt. Y
A 84 87 3 Capt.
AR 87 Pres 16 Lt. Col.
Clay William L. D MO 1 A 53 55 2 Pvt.
Coble Howard R NC 6 CG 52 56 4 Y
CGR 60 82 22 Capt. Y
Collins Mac R GA 8 AG 64 70 6 E-4
Conyers Jr. John D MI 14 AG 48 52 4 Y
A 52 54 2
AR 54 57 3
Cramer Robert E. (Bud) D AL 5 A 72 73 1 2nd Lt.
AR 76 78 2 Capt.
Crane Philip M. R IL 8 A 54 56 2 Cpl.
Cunningham Randy "Duke" R CA 50 N 66 87 21 Cmdr. Y Y
Davis III Thomas M. R VA 11 A 71 72 1 2nd Lt.
AR 72 79 7 1stLt.
Deal Nathan D GA 10 A 66 68 2 Capt.
DeFazio Peter A. D OR 4 AF 67 71 4 Lt.
Delahunt William D. D MA 10 CGR 63 71 8
Dingell John D. D MI 15 A 44 46 2 2nd Lt. Y
Duncan, Jr. John J. "Jimmy" R TN 2 AG 70 87 17 Capt.
Etheridge Bob D NC 2 A 65 67 2 E-4
Evans Lane D IL 17 MC 69 71 2 Lance Cpl.
Everett Terry R AL 2 AF 55 59 4 Amn. 1st
Fletcher Ernie R KY 6 AF 74 80 6 Capt.
Frelinghuysen Rodney R NJ 11 A 69 71 2 Pvt. Y
Frost Martin D TX 24 AR 66 72 6
Gephardt Richard A. D MO 3 ANG 65 71 6
Gibbons Jim R NV 2 AF 67 71 4 Capt. Y
ANG 75 96 21 Col. Y
Gilchrest Wayne T. R MD 1 MC 64 68 4 Sgt. Y
Gillmor Paul E. R OH 5 AF 65 66 1 Capt.
Gonzales Charlie D TX 20 ANG 69 75 6 Tech. Sgt.
Goode, Jr. Virgil H. D VA 5 AG 69 75 6 Spec. 5
Gordon Bart D TN 6 AR 71 72 1
Goss Porter J. R FL 14 A 60 62 2 1st Lt.
Hall Ralph M. D TX 4 N 42 45 3 Lt. Y
Hastings Richard "Doc" R WA 4 A 63 64 1
AR 64 69 5 Spec. 4
Hinchey Maurice D. D NY 22 N 56 59 3 Seaman
Hobson David L. R OH 7 ANG 58 63 5
Hoeffel Joseph M. D PA 13 AR 70 76 6 E-4
Houghton Amo R NY 29 MC 45 46 1 Pfc.
Hunter Duncan R CA 52 A 69 71 2 Lt. Y
Hyde Henry J. R IL 6 N 42 46 4 Ensign Y
NR 46 68 22 Cmdr. Y
Isakson Johnny R GA 6 AF 66 67 1
ANG 67 72 5 MSgt.
Issa Darrell R CA 49 A 70 72 2 Pvt.
A 76 80 4 Capt.
AR 80 88 8 Capt.
Janklow William J. Y R SD 1 MC 56 59 3 Pfc. Y
Jefferson William J. D LA 2 A 69 75 6 Capt.
Jenkins William L. R TN 1 A 59 60 1 2nd Lt.
AR 60 69 9 Capt.
Johnson Sam R TX 3 AF 51 79 28 Col. Y Y
Jones Jr. Walter B. R NC 3 AG 67 71 4 Enl.
Kanjorski Paul E. D PA 11 A 60 61 1
King Peter T. R NY 3 AG 68 73 5 Spec. 5
Kirk Mark Steven R IL 10 NR 89 Pres 14 Lt. Cmdr. Y
Kleczka Gerald D. D WI 4 ANG 63 69 6 Sgt.
Kline John Y R MN 2 MC 69 94 25 Col. Y Y
Knollenberg Joe R MI 9 A 55 57 2 Cpl.
Kolbe Jim R AZ 8 N 68 69 1 Y
NR 69 77 8 Lt. Cmdr.
Lewis Ron R KY 2 N 72 72 0
Linder John R GA 7 AF 67 69 2 Capt.
Lipinski William O. D IL 3 AR 61 67 6 SSgt.
Lucas Kenneth D KY 4 AF 55 57 2
ANG 57 67 10 Major
Markey Edward J. D MA 7 AR 68 73 5
Marshall James C. Y D GA 3 A 68 70 2 Sgt. Y
McDermott Jim D WA 7 N 68 70 2 Lt. Cmdr.
Miller Gary G. R CA 42 A 67 68 1 Pvt.
Mollohan Alan B. D WV 1 AR 70 83 13 Capt.
Moore Dennis D KS 3 A 70 70 0 2nd Lt.
AR 70 73 3 Capt.
Murtha John P. D PA 12 MC 52 55 3 Lt. Y
MC 66 67 1 Maj.
MCR 67 90 23 Col. Y
Norwood Charlie R GA 9 A 67 69 2 Capt. Y
Ortiz Solomon P. D TX 27 A 60 62 2 Spec.
Osborne Tom R NE 3 AG 60 66 6 Sgt.
Otter C. L. "Butch" R ID 1 AG 67 73 6 Spec.
Pascrell, Jr. William J. D NJ 8 A 61 62 1
AR 62 67 5 E-5
Paul Ron R TX 14 AF 63 65 2
ANG 65 68 3 Capt.
Pearce Steve Y R NM 2 AF 71 76 5 Capt. Y
Peterson Collin C. D MN 7 AG 63 69 6 SSgt.
Peterson John E. R PA 5 AR 58 64 6 Spec. 2
Pitts Joseph R. R PA 16 AF 63 69 6 Capt. Y
Ramstad Jim R MN 3 AR 68 74 6 1st Lt.
Rangel Charles B. D NY 15 A 48 52 4 SSgt. Y
Regula Ralph R OH 16 N 44 46 2 Seaman
Reyes Silvestre D TX 16 A 66 68 2 E-5 Y
Reynolds Thomas R NY 26 ANG 70 76 6 Sgt.
Rogers Harold R KY 5 AG 57 64 7
Rogers Mike R MI 8 A 85 88 3 1st Lt.
Rush Bobby L. D IL 1 A 63 68 5 Pvt.
Schrock Edward R VA 2 N 64 88 24 Capt. Y Y
Scott Robert C. D VA 3 AR 70 74 4
AG 74 76 2
Serrano Jose E. D NY 16 A 64 66 2
Shadegg John R AZ 3 ANG 69 75 6
Sherwood Donald L. R PA 10 A 64 66 2 1stLt.
Shimkus John M. R IL 19 A 80 86 6 Capt.
AR 86 Pres 17 Lt. Col.
Simmons Rob R CT 2 A 65 68 3 1st Lt. Y
AR 1970 2000 30 Col. Y
Smith Nick R MI 7 AF 59 61 2 Capt.
Snyder Victor F. D AR 2 MC 67 69 2 Cpl. Y
Spratt Jr. John M. D SC 5 A 69 71 2 Capt.
Stark Pete D CA 13 AF 55 57 2 Capt.
Stearns Cliff R FL 6 AF 63 67 4 Capt.
Tanner John D TN 8 N 68 72 4 Lt.
AG 1974 2000 26 Col. Y
Taylor Gene D MS 4 CGR 71 84 13 E-6
Thompson Mike D CA 1 A 69 73 4 SSgt. Y
Towns Ed D NY 10 A 56 58 2
Turner Jim D TX 2 A 70 78 8 Capt.
Weldon Dave R FL 15 A 81 87 6 Major
AR 87 92 5 Major
Whitfield Edward R KY 1 AR 67 73 6 Lt.
Wicker Roger R MS 1 AF 76 80 4 Capt.
AFR 80 Pres 23 Lt. Col.
Wilson Heather R NM 1 AF 82 89 7 Capt.
Wilson Joe R SC 2 AR 72 75 3
AG 75 Pres 28 Col.
Wolf Frank R. R VA 10 A 62 63 1
AR 63 67 4 Enlisted
Young C.W. Bill R FL 10 AG 48 57 9
Young Don R AK 1 A 55 57 2

Total 121 8 86 59 30 5 5

Back to Veterans in Congress

About the Chairman | About the Committee | Committee News | Hearings | Legislation |
Veterans' Information | Governmental Links | Democrat's Home Page | Contact the Committee

I'll try to post a link, in any case , the 108th congress breakdown is as best as i can determine the following:

Republicans: 54 served on AD in the various military branches
18 served in a reserve or National guard status ONLY.

Democrats: 31 served on AD in the various military branches
17 served in a reserve or National guard status ONLY.

I'll get back to ya with more when able. Hand counted as best I could to support the numbers vice just accepting. Get back at ya...dman

http://veterans.house.gov/vetlink/vetsincongress.html

Found it. above is the link....be back soon..dman

Nice Find. Now check this out...

Some former and present Bush II Administration officials who did/didn't serve. I may be missing some. Below is an interesting number:

0= Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant former Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the former White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, the main proponents of the war in Iraq ­served in combat (combined).

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0903-04.htm

I've also added the following:

Alberto Gonzales-served in AF 1973-75
Colin Powell-35 years of active duty military service
Jim Nicholson-Secretary of Veterans Affairs- 8 years active duty
Condi Rice-Secretary of State- no military service
Michael Chertoff- Homeland Security- no military service
Alphonso Jackson- HUD- no military service
John Snow- Treasury- no military service
Michael Leavitt- HHS- no military Service
Samuel Bodman- Energy- no military Service
Norman Mineta- Transportation- no military service
Margaret Spellings- Education- no military service
Elaine Chao- Labor- no military service
Carlos Gutierrez-Commerce- no military service
Dirk Kempthorne- Interior- no military service
Mike Johanns- Agricuture- no military service

Only Colin Powell, Nicholson, Gonzales, & Rumsfeld have served.

Rumsfeld served as an aviator & flight instructor. I guess that explains his penchant for airstrikes.:wiggle: Yikes!

What's the significance? I guess it depends on what side of the isle you are on.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Have some stats on the 108th congress for ya......

Got those stats on the Bush administration?

[defenseman]

The significance is the same for both. when you look at the big picture, and count every head, I think it will end up about even board to be honest. If it's a tad off one way or the other, thats fine too. Service is what it is, 'service' from where I sit. You have or have not served for your own reasons, in or out of combat, to me it makes no difference. Some occupations are more demanding than others, some more dangerous. Ok, thats fine too. But, I personally don't hold it against anyone who hasn't put on the uniform, never have. I may note they didn't or did, so it may possibly support a particular perspective they have, but I'd never hold it against them either way. I will say, for a retired naval officer to do what he did, "duke" cunningham, that was very disappointing to me. Especially since he was navy. Really pissed me off to be honest..dman

[defenseman]

Opening it all the way, I think you'll find current republicans dominate this topic.

I just opened the umbrella more beerslug, thats all. the bush administration was called out, and I opened the umbrella a bit more to include "politicians" from both sides of the aisle. We were generalizing on politicians. Looks like it pretty close to even board to me. If you want to debate that the bush administration doesn't have many veterans , I'll agree with ya. Because, quite simply they don't. BUT, that wasn't the debate point. I expanded it too "politicians". Unless you are changing oars midstream. The facts about the congress, well they don't lie. All I did was open the umbrella farther , and the numbers look pretty good for both sides of the house to be honest.

My exact statement was:

You could say the same about numerous politicians on both sides of the aisle since we are opening the umbrella only part way...dman

Your response was:

Opening it all the way, I think you'll find current republicans dominate this topic

Well, I provided the entire congress for you. Looks pretty close to me, with respect to the "politicians" in congress. Both are represented quite well if you ask me. I think the discussion point is over. ...dman

[55CrushEm]

Well, I provided the entire congress for you. Looks pretty close to me, with respect to the "politicians" in congress. Both are represented quite well if you ask me. I think the discussion point is over. ...dman

Ibida, ibida, ibida......that's all folks. :wave:

[TailgateNut]

If you want to debate that the bush administration doesn't have many veterans , I'll agree with ya. Because, quite simply they don't. BUT, that wasn't the debate point.

But it may clarify the overzealous rush to war!

[55CrushEm]

But it may clarify the overzealous rush to war!
RUSH to war? I forget....how many years, and how many U.N. resolutions violated?

[Traveler]

The significance is the same for both. when you look at the big picture, and count every head, I think it will end up about even board to be honest.

Agree.

If it's a tad off one way or the other, thats fine too. Service is what it is, 'service' from where I sit. You have or have not served for your own reasons, in or out of combat, to me it makes no difference.

We differ here. It most definitely does when planning on going to war. It's tough enough planning a war even with experienced military personnel. It's magified that much more with people without combat or war planning experience. Compound that even further when those making plans for war won't take the advice of the commanders in the field. The result is just what we have now.

Some occupations are more demanding than others, some more dangerous. Ok, thats fine too. But, I personally don't hold it against anyone who hasn't put on the uniform, never have.

I do! See above.

I may note they didn't or did, so it may possibly support a particular perspective they have, but I'd never hold it against them either way.

Especially when their perspective is the same as yours, right? J/K ;D

I will say, for a retired naval officer to do what he did, "duke" cunningham, that was very disappointing to me. Especially since he was navy. Really pissed me off to be honest..dman

No commentary needed.

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=papi728]Agree.



We differ here. It most definitely does when planning on going to war. It's tough enough planning a war even with experienced military personnel. It's magified that much more with people without combat or war planning experience. Compound that even further when those making plans for war won't take the advice of the commanders in the field. The result is just what we have now.


Politicians decide to go to war. Military folks are supposed to plan and execute. I will agree with you to a point though. Rumsfeld , well this war hasn't been his best job. My reports indicate he has stepped on more than a few toes in the military, and trust me, the military does not care for this man at all. But, it is, what it is nonetheless, the sooner the military's hands are untied , the quicker the war ends I can tell you that. Did GW make a poor decision on his choice for Sec of Def. Yep, he did, I agree.....dman

[Spider]

Ya dont go to war with the Army you want . you go to war with the Enemy you have ...... I laughed my ass off ......

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=papi728]Agree.



Especially when their perspective is the same as yours, right? J/K ;D



QUOTE]
Making assumptions again. That will eventually get ya. Perspectives , well everyone has one, doesn't matter whether they agree or disagree with ya to be honest. And to be brutally honest, I could give two s*&ts if anyone agrees with me or not. In most cases though, I do listen. I do like to know a little a bit about the person who's making a statement or such , that's all. If opinions agree great, if not, great. No skin off my nose..dman

[defenseman]

Ya dont go to war with the Army you want . you go to war with the Enemy you have ...... I laughed my ass off ......

I didn't like that either spide, I will say, in an emergency, that is in fact the case most of the time though. And as military members, we are required to adapt and overcome, simple as that...dman

[TailgateNut]

[QUOTE=papi728]Agree.



We differ here. It most definitely does when planning on going to war. It's tough enough planning a war even with experienced military personnel. It's magified that much more with people without combat or war planning experience. Compound that even further when those making plans for war won't take the advice of the commanders in the field. The result is just what we have now.


Politicians decide to go to war. Military folks are supposed to plan and execute. I will agree with you to a point though. Rumsfeld , well this war hasn't been his best job. My reports indicate he has stepped on more than a few toes in the military, and trust me, the military does not care for this man at all. But, it is, what it is nonetheless, the sooner the military's hands are untied , the quicker the war ends I can tell you that. Did GW make a poor decision on his choice for Sec of Def. Yep, he did, I agree.....dman

I would say your comment regarding Rumsfeld "Rumsfeld , well this war hasn't been his best job. My reports indicate he has stepped on more than a few toes in the military, and trust me, the military does not care for this man at all. But, it is, what it is nonetheless, the sooner the military's hands are untied , the quicker the war ends I can tell you that" hits the nail square on the head. Which solidifies the comments regarding this administrations lack of military experience.
Politicians DO decide to go to war, but politicians with military experience generally would examine the situation rather than charging in half cocked and declaring victories while still engaged!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If you want to debate that the bush administration doesn't have many veterans , I'll agree with ya. Because, quite simply they don't. BUT, that wasn't the debate point.
Actually, the point was about chikenhawks, with this administration fielding an all-star team.

[defenseman]

Actually, the point was about chikenhawks, with this administration fielding an all-star team.

And I expanded the umbrella, as stated to politicians in general, in response to the above, and it was adopted. A likely target for expansion is congress. I used them to prove my point....dman

*You can interpret it any way you wish. I agree that the bush administration does not have many vets. It's pretty obvious. Why debate that. That is why i expanded the center of the debate as I did. Again, believe what you will, but when the umbrella is opened across the politicians in congress the fact is it is a pretty darn fair representation across the board as far as veterans are concerned. I honestly didn't know there were that many. thats my point..dman

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug
Actually, the point was about chikenhawks, with this administration fielding an all-star team.

And I expanded the umbrella, as stated to politicians in general, in response to the above, and it was adopted. A likely target for expansion is congress. I used them to prove my point....dman

*You can interpret it any way you wish. I agree that the bush administration does not have many vets. It's pretty obvious. Why debate that. That is why i expanded the center of the debate as I did. Again, believe what you will, but when the umbrella is opened across the politicians in congress the fact is it is a pretty darn fair representation across the board as far as veterans are concerned. I honestly didn't know there were that many. thats my point..dman


A fair tactic and nice deflection it was too.:thumbsup: I will say that you seem reasonable and willing to listen to another's point of view. Bravo!

That said, we all know (or should) that everyone that posts in this forum is entrenched in their politcal beliefs. The odds of one of us changing one anothers mind are slim to none. Unless, of course, one of this administrations policies hits too close to home in a negative way.

I ask now that you give your definition of a chickenhawk. I'm sure BB will drop the subject if you would reply to his quote above. Cool?

[defenseman]

A fair tactic and nice deflection it was too.:thumbsup: I will say that you seem reasonable and willing to listen to another's point of view. Bravo!

That said, we all know (or should) that everyone that posts in this forum is entrenched in their politcal beliefs. The odds of one of us changing one anothers mind are slim to none. Unless, of course, one of this administrations policies hits too close to home in a negative way.

I ask now that you give your definition of a chickenhawk. I'm sure BB will drop the subject if you would reply to his quote above. Cool?

A chickenhawk, is what it is, as defined the way you fellas describe. And yes, GW has some chickenhawks in there, obvious to us all I might add. Is it a problem? To some extent, however, in my estimation the one guy who has had the most negative affect on GW's administration is former military, that would be of course the Sec of Def, Rumsfeld. That aside, as I said before, I question GW's selection of Rumsfeld to be honest. The rest? There were a few more qualified in some cases. All in all Sec of state Rice, has done a pretty good job, given the issues which have risen on her watch. In summary though, "chickenhawks" as termed, are virtully unavoidable in any administration. In a hawkish admin though, I would have brought a few more former military on board before I set sail...dman

Thanks Papi, a reasonable mediation is sometimes required, and I do try to listen (most of the time):thumbsup: ..dman

*AND just so you know, I am looking forward to GW moving on, I will be looking forward to a new CIC in 2008. Position on Iraq? that would be , carry on.....

[Hogan11]

This is absolutely a very idiotic question and angle. It's volunteer only. JUST because one agrees with the war doesn't mean they have to take up arms. JUST LIKE, just because one disagrees with the war, doesn't mean they should move out of the country. Though I'm wishing a few would, the ones that "rah rah" for the terrorists need to leave...dman

Yup..no one actually has to prove their convictions these days......

[freak6]

RUSH to war? I forget....how many years, and how many U.N. resolutions violated?

idiot, he was no threat to us.

[enjolras]

idiot, he was no threat to us.

WOW. This may well be a contender for most useless post of the year. I'm sure Mock has something up his sleeve involving the high drama of cats and a rocking chair, but even that's gonna have to work hard to overcome THIS gem.

[DBruleU]

idiot, he was no threat to us.

Wow, well said "Sergeant."

[DBruleU]

Because you believe that the war in Iraq is about defending the homeland.



Crappy analogy.

The Broncos won't take you, but the Army probably will.



Look at the bright side: At least you're a swift boat vet.

It is about protecting the homeland. So what?

They probably wouldnt take me. But I still dont play football.

So...is that a no answer still to your self-proclaimed service?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It is about protecting the homeland. So what?

You wrap yourself in the flag and question the patriotism of those who question Dim Son's Iraq policy, but when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is and answer your country's call, you're nothing but talk.

They probably wouldnt take me.

The Army? Are you kidding? You'd have to be pretty screwed up for them not to take you right now.

So...is that a no answer still to your self-proclaimed service?

Is that a 'no' to my request that you post your SSAN and mother's maiden name?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Got those stats on the Bush administration?

Chirp, chirp, chirp...

http://www.petdiscounters.com/files/images/d_3742.jpg

(I'll bet dman and his sidekick didn't think anyone noticed how they changed the subject.)

:D

[DBruleU]

You wrap yourself in the flag and question the patriotism of those who question Dim Son's Iraq policy, but when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is and answer your country's call, you're nothing but talk.



The Army? Are you kidding? You'd have to be pretty screwed up for them not to take you right now.



Is that a 'no' to my request that you post your SSAN and mother's maiden name?

Yes, that is a no. I never served. You said you did, so where is yours? You continue to hide from this. You never served, yet you ridicule me and other Repubs for not serving.

I dont need to put my money where my mouth is. It's not a freakin draft, Im not required to do a thing. I didnt abandon anything like you make it sound.

And I was speaking of the Broncos not taking me, not the Army.

[Blueflame]

Yes, that is a no. I never served. You said you did, so where is yours? You continue to hide from this. You never served, yet you ridicule me and other Repubs for not serving.

I dont need to put my money where my mouth is. It's not a freakin draft, Im not required to do a thing. I didnt abandon anything like you make it sound.

And I was speaking of the Broncos not taking me, not the Army.

You're asking him to post personal information... but are reluctant to post your own....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're asking him to post personal information... but are reluctant to post your own....

Exactly.

According to his own reasoning, he's "hiding" from something if he refuses to post his SSAN and his mother's maiden name when I ask him to.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You never served, yet you ridicule me and other Repubs for not serving.

Man, you sure get confused easily.

I said I served - I just didn't give you the details you and your fellow swift boaters wanted.

I dont need to put my money where my mouth is.


And that, dear reader, should be the official Bush supporter/neocon slogan. :laugh: :D

No need for your walk to match your talk - you're a republican!

[defenseman]

Chirp, chirp, chirp...

http://www.petdiscounters.com/files/images/d_3742.jpg

(I'll bet dman and his sidekick didn't think anyone noticed how they changed the subject.)

:D

Deflection is the proper term. And , he rogered up. End of story..dman

[DBruleU]

You're asking him to post personal information... but are reluctant to post your own....
Have you not been following the thread? Why would I post that information? I never served in the militray, Yet LABF comes here asking for that info from people who have served, but he wont post his own. He says hes a vet, so whats he hiding?

I'm not hiding anything.

[DBruleU]

Exactly.

According to his own reasoning, he's "hiding" from something if he refuses to post his SSAN and his mother's maiden name when I ask him to.

Hypocrit 101.

[DBruleU]

Man, you sure get confused easily.

I said I served - I just didn't give you the details you and your fellow swift boaters wanted.



And that, dear reader, should be the official Bush supporter/neocon slogan. :laugh: :D

No need for your walk to match your talk - you're a republican!

I dont need to put "my money where my mouth it" because I never served. I cant post a SSAN, or my mothers maiden name because it proves nothing. You on the other hand, do proclaim you are a vet, yet cant post one shred of proof that you did, or post where, when, and what you did in the military, because you know not even you can BS all that. Someone who actually did serve could read it and know you are BSing.

You never served LABF, why not just come out with the truth? Or did Bill Clinton teach you lying is ok if no one dies in the process?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Have you not been following the thread? Why would I post that information? I never served in the militray, Yet LABF comes here asking for that info from people who have served, but he wont post his own. He says hes a vet, so whats he hiding?

I'm not hiding anything. You're an ignorant individual! He posted his service experience more than once here as most all of us did in previous threads including the "who served" thread last year.

So what's your reasoning for not supporting your view in Iraq again?

[DBruleU]

You're an ignorant individual! He posted his service experience more than once here as most all of us did in previous threads including the "who served" thread last year.

So what's your reasoning for not supporting your view in Iraq again?

Oh my gosh, I am so ignorant! I cant stand how ignorant I am. How many times can I use the word "ignorant" when referring to another individual? I dont know...BB does it all so often.

Anyways, I wasnt here when he posted that info, so I dont think it would be too hard for him to post it again, in a thread that is marked for that.

I do support the war in Iraq. My reasoning is I am in agreement with why we are there, and I want to see us finish the job. Whats yours?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

.

Anyways, I wasnt here when he posted that info, so I dont think it would be too hard for him to post it again, in a thread that is marked for that.
Why should he have to explain his service to someone that is afraid to support their view in Iraq? Learn how to use the search function.
.
I do support the war in Iraq. My reasoning is I am in agreement with why we are there, and I want to see us finish the job. You're not married, and in good health (?), why don't you show your support and volunteer so those guys can come home to their wives and families if you "support war"?

[DBruleU]

Why should he have to explain his service to someone that is afraid to support their view in Iraq? Learn how to use the search function.
You're not married, and in good health (?), why don't you show your support and volunteer so those guys can come home to their wives and families if you "support war"?

Im afraid to support my view? Whats the right way to support it? Should I go to my local enlisting office and pack my bags for boot camp right now? This is just a way for you guys to sling more mud.

Even if I did volunteer, those guys with wives wouldnt just come home right away. They would be there the same amount of time. I'm not keeping them from anything. They volunteered because that was their choice, and thats what they wanted to do. I have a different path in my life, and I dont think the military is a part of the plan God has for me.

[Spider]

Im afraid to support my view? Whats the right way to support it? Should I go to my local enlisting office and pack my bags for boot camp right now? This is just a way for you guys to sling more mud. most men would ........ but then there is that 18 years old rule you have to bypass .....

Even if I did volunteer, those guys with wives wouldnt just come home right away. They would be there the same amount of time. I'm not keeping them from anything. They volunteered because that was their choice, and thats what they wanted to do. I have a different path in my life, and I dont think the military is a part of the plan God has for me.
you notice how cowards always have excuses ? .....

[DBruleU]

most men would ........ but then there is that 18 years old rule you have to bypass .....


you notice how cowards always have excuses ? .....

Nice spider.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Im afraid to support my view? Whats the right way to support it? Should I go to my local enlisting office and pack my bags for boot camp right now? Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even if I did volunteer, those guys with wives wouldnt just come home right away. They would be there the same amount of time. I'm not keeping them from anything.
BS!!!!!!!! If you and the other "war supporters" actually had nuts and did your part these guys who have done tour, after tour after tour, could finally come home.

They volunteered because that was their choice, and thats what they wanted to do. I have a different path in my life, and I dont think the military is a part of the plan God has for me. Ah, so God told you not to go to Iraq, how convenient!

[DBruleU]

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BS!!!!!!!! If you and the other "war supporters" actually had nuts and did your part these guys who have done tour, after tour after tour, could finally come home.
Ah, so God told you not to go to Iraq, how convenient!
Done my part? Uh, it's all volunteer, I dont have an obligation.

God has plans for everyones life, and the military isnt one of them for me. Sorry you dont understand atheist.

[defenseman]

most men would ........ but then there is that 18 years old rule you have to bypass .....

you notice how cowards always have excuses ? .....

You can join at age 17, with PC (Parental consent). You can also ship to boots at age 17....dman

[Spider]

Nice spider.
not being mean here , but it is the truth .......
there is a guy in Casper , few cans short of a six pack , had a run in with the Casper police , Now he stands on the street corner , with a bull horn fighting the Casper police , he gets arrested , he is right back out there .Agree with his stance , like him or not , you have to respect his resolve ......... he lets nothing stand in his way ........ and he has excuses he could use not to fight his fight ........

[defenseman]

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BS!!!!!!!! If you and the other "war supporters" actually had nuts and did your part these guys who have done tour, after tour after tour, could finally come home. Ah, so God told you not to go to Iraq, how convenient!

Not necessarily.

And, it's a volunteer military, no requirement anywhere I can find that says if one approves of the war, they have to join and go fight it. If that were the case, Then, folks who didn't agree with the war, well they can move to another country. Fair enough? Your demonizing someone who is just exercising an opinion, freedom of speech. You have the right to disagree with the war, just like his to agree with it. To validate one opinion over the other, based on previous "service" or one's option to not "volunteer" for the armed forces during this war , is quite honestly neither here nor there. An opinion is just an opinion...dman

[TailgateNut]

Done my part? Uh, it's all valunteer, I dont have an obligation.

God has plans for everyones life, and the military isnt one of them for me. Sorry you dont understand atheist.


Hopefully part of that plan is to give you a spine! If you are such a supporter of the war, and the reasons/ lies which put our soldiers there, then carry your a$$ down to the recruiter and replace one of the soldiers who doesn't agree with Bush and Co's ideas!

In my mind you are a clone of young Bush. Nothing but HOT AIR, and GOD talks to you!

[DBruleU]

Hopefully part of that plan is to give you a spine! If you are such a supporter of the war, and the reasons/ lies which put our soldiers there, then carry your a$$ down to the recruiter and replace one of the soldiers who doesn't agree with Bush and Co's ideas!

In my mind you are a clone of young Bush. Nothing but HOT AIR, and GOD talks to you!

Way to rebut everything that has already been said.

[TailgateNut]

Way to rebut everything that has already been said.

I'm not rebutting everything which has been said. I'm just giving you my opinion. Although some may not agree, I think many supporters of this war would not be as supportive if their own a$$e$ were out there on the front lines dodging bullets. It tends to give you a different perspective, and an immediate attitude adjustment!

[defenseman]

I'm not rebutting everything which has been said. I'm just giving you my opinion. Although some may not agree, I think many supporters of this war would not be as supportive if their own a$$e$ were out there on the front lines dodging bullets. It tends to give you a different perspective, and an immediate attitude adjustment!

IF, you can dodge bullets you pretty damn good, and fast I might add. AND, it is your opinion indeed. And , everyone has an opinion, agreed...dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Done my part? Uh, it's all volunteer, I dont have an obligation.
God has plans for everyones life, and the military isnt one of them for me. Sorry you dont understand atheist.

Ah, so being part of the religious right, you can't actually fight a war created by lies, just condemn those who don't.

FYI I don't believe in your version of God (the one who talks to you and tells you not fight for your beliefs).

What else does "your" God tell you? How about when your jacking off all time, what does he say to you about that?

[TailgateNut]

Ah, so being part of the religious right, you can't actually fight a war created by lies, just condemn those who don't.

FYI I don't believe in your version of God (the one who talks to you and tells you not fight for your beliefs).

What else does "your" God tell you? How about when your jacking off all time, what does he say to you about that?


LOL

[Blueflame]

Have you not been following the thread? Why would I post that information? I never served in the militray, Yet LABF comes here asking for that info from people who have served, but he wont post his own. He says hes a vet, so whats he hiding?

I'm not hiding anything.

So... just because he did serve in the military, he is obliged to post personal information on a public internet messageboard... but because you didn't serve (yet, anyway) you don't have any obligation to reciprocate?

It is unwise to post any personal identity information on any public messageboard... and no one should be asked to. The only reason he's asking you to post your SSN# and mother's maiden name (He knows you'll decline) is to underscore the fact that anyone who's asking him to post military info is basically asking him to do the same thing as posting his SSN# and mother's maiden name. He's not stupid enough to do that, guys ::)

[DBruleU]

So... just because he did serve in the military, he is obliged to post personal information on a public internet messageboard... but because you didn't serve (yet, anyway) you don't have any obligation to reciprocate?

It is unwise to post any personal identity information on any public messageboard... and no one should be asked to. The only reason he's asking you to post your SSN# and mother's maiden name (He knows you'll decline) is to underscore the fact that anyone who's asking him to post military info is basically asking him to do the same thing as posting his SSN# and mother's maiden name. He's not stupid enough to do that, guys ::)

I dont care for that info frankly. I know he knows I wont post it, and I know he wont post his. He cant even tell me what he did, where he did it, and how long he did it. Yet hes always going on and on about how I'm a coward for not fighting in a war. Why is he able to tell me that, when he has never served himself?

[DBruleU]

Ah, so being part of the religious right, you can't actually fight a war created by lies, just condemn those who don't.

FYI I don't believe in your version of God (the one who talks to you and tells you not fight for your beliefs).

What else does "your" God tell you? How about when your jacking off all time, what does he say to you about that?

Just wondering, what is your interpretation of God? Why would we all have our own interpretation of who God is, and what he is? That doesnt make much sense. I dont think you can get to heaven, and to God many different ways, there is only one way, cause Jesus said there was only one way.

And what does masturbation have to do with anything? Again, liberals are perverts and can turn any convo into something about sex. No wonder Clinton is their hero.

[Blueflame]

I dont care for that info frankly. I know he knows I wont post it, and I know he wont post his. He cant even tell me what he did, where he did it, and how long he did it. Yet hes always going on and on about how I'm a coward for not fighting in a war. Why is he able to tell me that, when he has never served himself?

LABF did serve, DBrule... just going from memory of past exchanges, I believe he's a Gulf War veteran.

To say he didn't serve just because he won't post personal info would be like others here demanding that you scan and post your driver's license as proof that you have one. See how ludicrous that sounds? No one is going to... or should... post personal info.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Just wondering, what is your interpretation of God? Why would we all have our own interpretation of who God is, and what he is?
Because of people like you that try and force your interpretations on people like me.


That doesnt make much sense. I dont think you can get to heaven, and to God many different ways, there is only one way, cause Jesus said there was only one way. I don't care what your interpretation is or what you think I can do.


And what does masturbation have to do with anything? You said you talk to God so I was wondering what his take is on you jacking off all the time?

[DBruleU]

Because of people like you that try and force your interpretations on people like me.

I don't care what your interpretation is or what you think I can do.

You said you talk to God so I was wondering what his take is on you jacking off all the time?
Listen buddy. If you call yourself a christian, you understand there is only one interpretation of God, and who he is. Because Jesus himself told us. It's not my interpretation I'm forcing upon you, its his, and I'm just repeating it. You dont like that interpretation, because that God doesnt allow you to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without any consequences.

Also, where did I say I talk to God?

[DBruleU]

LABF did serve, DBrule... just going from memory of past exchanges, I believe he's a Gulf War veteran.

To say he didn't serve just because he won't post personal info would be like others here demanding that you scan and post your driver's license as proof that you have one. See how ludicrous that sounds? No one is going to... or should... post personal info.

Yeah, and I served in Nam.

[Blueflame]

Yeah, and I served in Nam.

I'm sure you're probably old enough to drive, too. Or not. :pfbbt: ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He cant even tell me what he did, where he did it, and how long he did it. Yet hes always going on and on about how I'm a coward for not fighting in a war. Why is he able to tell me that, when he has never served himself?

Your cowardice is apparent insofar as you believe the present war in Iraq is necessary for our nation's security and interests - yet you feel no obligation to act on such convictions by serving. (And then you have the audacity to question the patriotism of others.)

In other words, you, as a Bush supporter, feel this war is necessary, but you're content to let others do the fighting and make the sacrifices (while you wrap yourself in the flag and assume a "more patriotic than thou" attitude.)

My military service has nothing to do with any of this. You're just attempting to create yet another deflection.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It is unwise to post any personal identity information on any public messageboard... and no one should be asked to. The only reason he's asking you to post your SSN# and mother's maiden name (He knows you'll decline) is to underscore the fact that anyone who's asking him to post military info is basically asking him to do the same thing as posting his SSN# and mother's maiden name. He's not stupid enough to do that, guys ::)

The fact that you have to break all this down for him shows just how slow he is.

:D

LABF did serve, DBrule... just going from memory of past exchanges, I believe he's a Gulf War veteran.

Tail end of the Vietnam era, actually.

[broncocalijohn]

This is absolutely a very idiotic question and angle. It's volunteer only. JUST because one agrees with the war doesn't mean they have to take up arms. JUST LIKE, just because one disagrees with the war, doesn't mean they should move out of the country. Though I'm wishing a few would, the ones that "rah rah" for the terrorists need to leave...dman

Bingo! I dont support the war to start but backed it once they started. When a liberal gets on their soap box and says if you believe in the war, why dont you go fight in Iraq. I like to come back with a question of , "Do you believe we should be fighting cancer?" Of course they answer yes. then i ask, "Why dont you become a doctor?" Because you support a policy, doesnt mean you have to be directly involved. Their are some who dont believe in this war but actually support the troops. That might be better than those who support the war but dont do anything else on the matter.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bingo! I dont support the war to start but backed it once they started. When a liberal gets on their soap box and says if you believe in the war, why dont you go fight in Iraq. I like to come back with a question of , "Do you believe we should be fighting cancer?" Of course they answer yes. then i ask, "Why dont you become a doctor?" Because you support a policy, doesnt mean you have to be directly involved. Their are some who dont believe in this war but actually support the troops. That might be better than those who support the war but dont do anything else on the matter.

Not a very good analogy, dude.

Not too many people have what it takes to become doctors, whereas the Army will take just about anyone who can walk and chew gum at the same time these days.

And supporting a war your country is fighting is more than just supporting a policy.

A policy is an abstract thing.

A war is a concrete thing where people (your fellow Americans) are getting bloody for a cause you say is necessary for our country's welfare, security, etc.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Listen buddy. If you call yourself a christian, I don't call myself anything you label people... UNDERSTAND?

you understand there is only one interpretation of God, and who he is. Because Jesus himself told us. Get this through your young, ignorant head, I don't care what YOUR interpretation of your God is... UNDERSTAND?

It's not my interpretation I'm forcing upon you, its his, and I'm just repeating it. WTF don't you understand about I don't care what YOUR interpretation of your God is... UNDERSTAND?

You dont like that interpretation, because that God doesnt allow you to do whatever you want, whenever you want, without any consequences. Want to know why so many people are moving away from organized religion?
People like YOU!

Also, where did I say I talk to God?
God has plans for everyones life, and the military isnt one of them for me.

[DBruleU]

I don't call myself anything you label people... UNDERSTAND?
Get this through your young, ignorant head, I don't care what YOUR interpretation of your God is... UNDERSTAND?
WTF don't you understand about I don't care what YOUR interpretation of your God is... UNDERSTAND?
Want to know why so many people are moving away from organized religion?
People like YOU!

Nice BB. I dont see anywhere in my response that I said, "I talk to God." Oh, and I really dont appreciate your interpretation to what I said. You hear me? I SAID, I DONT CARE what YOUR interpretation to what I said. GOT IT? DO YA?

For the billionth time, it isnt MY interpretation of whop and what God is, he told us himself, so it's his, not mine. It's an inconvenient truth I guess.

[DBruleU]

The fact that you have to break all this down for him shows just how slow he is.

:D



Tail end of the Vietnam era, actually.

I actually served at the tail end of the Gulf.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

For the billionth time, it isnt MY interpretation of whop and what God is, he told us himself, so it's his, not mine. It's an inconvenient truth I guess. How ignorant can one juvenile be? You religious right boneheads just don't get it. One last time, I don't give a flying **** what you think your God does, who you think he is, or what you think your God told you. Is that clear enough for you?

You and people who like you that think their religious beliefs trump all other's beliefs are sickening!

I actually served at the tail end of the Gulf.
Is that suppose to be funny since God told you not to go to Bush's war?

[broncocalijohn]

Not a very good analogy, dude.

Not too many people have what it takes to become doctors, whereas the Army will take just about anyone who can walk and chew gum at the same time these days.

And supporting a war your country is fighting is more than just supporting a policy.

A policy is an abstract thing.

A war is a concrete thing where people (your fellow Americans) are getting bloody for a cause you say is necessary for our country's welfare, security, etc.

My analogy actually came from an anti war rally at UCI so many of those book nerds have the ability to become a doctor. Army requires alot out of someone. Dont take it lightly. Not just physically but mentally. In my post, I do state supporting a war is more than just supporting a policy. I mentioned it in the last two sentences where some anti war people support the troops more than ones who support the war in silent.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I actually served at the tail end of the Gulf.

I didn't know the swift boat vets were around then. :rofl:

[defenseman]

Your cowardice is apparent insofar as you believe the present war in Iraq is necessary for our nation's security and interests - yet you feel no obligation to act on such convictions by serving. (And then you have the audacity to question the patriotism of others.)

In other words, you, as a Bush supporter, feel this war is necessary, but you're content to let others do the fighting and make the sacrifices (while you wrap yourself in the flag and assume a "more patriotic than thou" attitude.)

My military service has nothing to do with any of this. You're just attempting to create yet another deflection.

You know, it has become obvious to us all that you are against Pres. Bush and the republican party, and for the most part ANYONE who supports Bush. Bush this, and Bush that. It's all Bush's fault. That said, some on this board while not necessarily in agreement with the democratic party on alot of issues, acknowledge some positives they have contributed and some of the members thereof. Warner out of virginia is a pretty sharp guy, I'll be following him. That's just one example. In any case, having given them (democrats) their due more than occassionally, I find it just amazing that you can find nothing good with the republicans, or GW. I can only surmize you absolutely "hate" him and the republicans. If so, well to be honest, your take cannot be taken realistically. Why? Very biased, and can't be trusted to give the real story based on your "hatred" of the Repubs and GW. You must understand, "hate" is a VERY,VERY strong word and feeling. Even it you are correct occassionally, it is overshadowed by your out and out "hatred". For someone who can obviously put together a solid take and who handles the english language quite well, it's a shame it does get discounted based on an obvious bias based on hate. Just MHO. You have some talent there, and it's wasted away on hate. I always gave Pres. Clinton his due, I didn't care for him but, he was the president. He did some good things, some not so good. But, HATE? Nah, there should be very few people in the world that can evoke that emotion, let alone the president..............dman

[Bronco_Beerslug]

But, HATE? Nah, there should be very few people in the world that can evoke that emotion, let alone the president..............dman
? The president can't hate? Why's that? FYI there are millions and millions of people who "evoke that emotion".

Another FYI, it's the religious right and right wing radicals who have defined "hate" in this country.

[defenseman]

? The president can't hate? Why's that? FYI there are millions and millions of people who "evoke that emotion".

Another FYI, it's the religious right and right wing radicals who have defined "hate" in this country.

Some people would say the left has defined "hate" the way some of them cheer for the enemy. They too, could easily be hated. It's all in one's perception. "Another FYI", yeah, what are you the final authority as the 'beacon of truth'? Whatever, you sure schooled meHilarious! ...dman

[TailgateNut]

[/B]

Some people would say the left has defined "hate" the way some of them cheer for the enemy. They too, could easily be hated. It's all in one's perception. "Another FYI", yeah, what are you the final authority as the 'beacon of truth'? Whatever, you sure schooled meHilarious! ...dman


"Cheering for the enemy"???. Come on, you can't be serious. Please point out the poster who has actually "Cheered for the enemy"
You are obviously confusing non-support of the current idiotic policy with support for the other side!

[Rohirrim]

I miss the good old days when the fascists wore brown shirts and black boots and it was easy to pick them out of a crowd. I think I'll write a thesis on the transformations of Jesus over time. Let's see... you've got the Jesus of the Borgias who sanctioned poisoning your enemies and burning heretics alive, then you've got the Jesus of the Crusades who sanctioned the impaling and burning alive of infidel babies, now you've got the modern Jesus who condemns to hell for eternity poor women who get abortions, supports the death penalty, and supports wars for oil while dressed up like Uncle Sam. That good old Jesus. He's a man for all seasons. One thing is true about all the prophets; It's always easier to pretend they said something else than it is to follow what they actually said.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

[/B]
Some people would say the left has defined "hate" the way some of them cheer for the enemy. They too, could easily be hated. It's all in one's perception. "Another FYI", yeah, what are you the final authority as the 'beacon of truth'? Whatever, you sure schooled me ...dman
Any facts or reference to show who is "cheering" for the enemy?

Do you want to compare what right wing icons spew compared to anyone else when it homes to hate mongering?

I see you didn't answer my question, why can't a president "hate"? Where do you come up with this sh*t?

[Spider]

A lot of Nam vets , were mistreated when they came home ...And so far very few high profile people have apologized to them..... Alex bennet has apologized several times , over the way he treated nam vets .......
My Dad never talks about Nam , but a nam vet got prostate cancer , was on his death bed , told his nephew , I dont give a damn about this cancer , I already died in 1972 ......Alot of nam vets have that feeling ......
Then thier country turned their back on them ........
And what happened when we pulled out of Nam ?
we was told if we leave Communism will run pampent through out Asia ....
Kinda like what we are being told about Iraq , we pull out no telling what evil will happen .......And yet , we have people supporting this ......
I supported invading Afghanistan , I offered to volunteer my time , driving supplies from a base to a port of call .. i was told they already have that covered but thanks for the offer , But I believed in Afghanistan war ....
and now we have iraq , to me isnt much different then nam ........

[defenseman]

"Cheering for the enemy"???. Come on, you can't be serious. Please point out the poster who has actually "Cheered for the enemy"
You are obviously confusing non-support of the current idiotic policy with support for the other side!

Never said anyone here cheered for the enemy. Made a comment about the left in general. There are those in our country who do desire for us to fall flat on our faces over there, that is undoubtedly cheering for the enemy..dman

[defenseman]

Any facts or reference to show who is "cheering" for the enemy?

Do you want to compare what right wing icons spew compared to anyone else when it homes to hate mongering?

I see you didn't answer my question, why can't a president "hate"? Where do you come up with this sh*t?

Sorry , I didn't immediately reply. Was indisposed ..dman

Hate, is a very strong word. There are very few that I personally can say, I actually hate. From my estimation, if you hate someone, you not only wish them ill, you would go out of your way to make sure there life is absolutely miserable. I , for the most part, wish that on very few...dman

Did I say the president can't hate. If you took it that way, sorry about that. I'm going on a 3 or 4 hours sleep today. Not fully engaged , need more " go juice"...time for a cup..dman

[Rohirrim]

Half the graves in Arlington contain the remains of Leftists. Maybe more, given some of the Leftist causes (like anti-monarchy, anti-slavery, anti-fascism) that America has fought wars over in the past. Perhaps, we should dig them up and burn them? We shouldn't have those stinking Leftists defiling the holy ground of true patriots.

[defenseman]

Half the graves in Arlington contain the remains of Leftists. Maybe more, given some of the Leftist causes (like anti-monarchy, anti-slavery, anti-fascism) that America has fought wars over in the past. Perhaps, we should dig them up and burn them? We shouldn't have those stinking Leftists defiling the holy ground of true patriots.

I wouldn't vote for that. There are those who believe I would, don't know why? Maybe because my view opposes the "left" in general in some cases, thats a reason to hold it against me? I think not. In addition, name calling and degrading comments don't lend well to the discussion points. Some of it, is good natured, thats understandable. But, alot of smack is routinely run here, very degrading in nature, and it quite honestly, hurts not helps the author. A distinct lack of class is "worn" by those who consistently allow their rhetoric to degrade in such a manner. Not becoming of anyone...dman

[TailgateNut]

Never said anyone here cheered for the enemy. Made a comment about the left in general. There are those in our country who do desire for us to fall flat on our faces over there, that is undoubtedly cheering for the enemy..dman

BS, we "the left, in general" wish we "the US" would get the fvck out of Iraq, in fact we "the left" don't understand the reasoning behind Iraq. We the left may have backed hunting OBL, but as we all know he's NOT IN IRAQ, and Bush could care less about where he is, because HE was not the reason for the occupation of IRAQ.
Regarding your "fall flat on our faces" comment. We have already shown the rest of the concious world that we condone a goverment which will twist facts, invent truths and lie like a rug! That's falling on our collective faces.

[Spider]

BS, we "the left, in general" wish we "the US" would get the fvck out of Iraq, in fact we "the left" don't understand the reasoning behind Iraq. We the left may have backed hunting OBL, but as we all know he's NOT IN IRAQ, and Bush could care less about where he is, because HE was not the reason for the occupation of IRAQ.
Regarding your "fall flat on our faces" comment. We have already shown the rest of the concious world that we condone a goverment which will twist facts, invent truths and lie like a rug! That's falling on our collective faces.
I realy wish you would come out of your shell and tell us how you realy feel ;D

[defenseman]

BS, we "the left, in general" wish we "the US" would get the fvck out of Iraq, in fact we "the left" don't understand the reasoning behind Iraq. We the left may have backed hunting OBL, but as we all know he's NOT IN IRAQ, and Bush could care less about where he is, because HE was not the reason for the occupation of IRAQ.
Regarding your "fall flat on our faces" comment. We have already shown the rest of the concious world that we condone a goverment which will twist facts, invent truths and lie like a rug! That's falling on our collective faces.

Must be monday???? There are some on the left , that are very extreme "left", that would like nothing more than for us to fall flat on our faces. Denying this would be wrong. You know it , I know it. Nearly all, if not all of the "rest of the world" has major issues just like us, with very few exceptions. We have been degraded by much of the world for years and years for various reasons, time and time again. I frankly could care less what the rest of the world thinks, but thats just me. Get over it. It's what happens when you are the big kid on the block, and alot of folks quietly envy what you have and the freedoms you practice. I'm thinking it will be that way for a long time. Just so you know, we have also shown the rest of the world that our own "media" will do the same as you claim the government does. They chuckle at that also, rather loudly sometimes. So be it, it's of no consequence in the big scheme of things. Finish the war, the right way, and get out as soon as possible...dman

*We'll get OBL. We never stopped looking for him, and never will.

[TailgateNut]

I realy wish you would come out of your shell and tell us how you realy feel ;D

Eventually I will. When I do, hide the women and children, because it may get ugly!:~ohyah!:

[Spider]

Eventually I will. When I do, hide the women and children, because it may get ugly!:~ohyah!:
;D naw my family loves shít like that .

[TailgateNut]

Must be monday???? There are some on the left , that are very extreme "left", that would like nothing more than for us to fall flat on our faces. Denying this would be wrong. You know it , I know it. Nearly all, if not all of the "rest of the world" has major issues just like us, with very few exceptions. We have been degraded by much of the world for years and years for various reasons, time and time again. I frankly could care less what the rest of the world thinks, but thats just me. Get over it. It's what happens when you are the big kid on the block, and alot of folks quietly envy what you have and the freedoms you practice. I'm thinking it will be that way for a long time. Just so you know, we have also shown the rest of the world that our own "media" will do the same as you claim the government does. They chuckle at that also, rather loudly sometimes. So be it, it's of no consequence in the big scheme of things. Finish the war, the right way, and get out as soon as possible...dman

*We'll get OBL. We never stopped looking for him, and never will.

The rest of the world may envy some of the freedoms we have, but are at the same time chuckling at the complete control our goverment has exhibited by ignoring public sentiment regarding almost every issue with the exception of politically motivated moves which will multiply exponentially over the next few months!

[defenseman]

The rest of the world may envy some of the freedoms we have, but are at the same time chuckling at the complete control our goverment has exhibited by ignoring public sentiment regarding almost every issue with the exception of politically motivated moves which will multiply exponentially over the next few months!


Oh, you mean those "polls" taken and such? Okay, we'll turn the running of the government over to polls. That will be the answer to all our problems...NOT!....dman

[TailgateNut]

Oh, you mean those "polls" taken and such? Okay, we'll turn the running of the government over to polls. That will be the answer to all our problems...NOT!....dman

The "poll" which matters will be in a few months, which is why the current administration is preparing for the negative feedback by reacting to the "polls" you refer to in your statement. All of the "important" issues such as Gay marriage, Flag burning are being used to wake the sleeping 51% of the nation, just in time to get their uneducated a$$es back to the booth!

[defenseman]

The "poll" which matters will be in a few months, which is why the current administration is preparing for the negative feedback by reacting to the "polls" you refer to in your statement. All of the "important" issues such as Gay marriage, Flag burning are being used to wake the sleeping 51% of the nation, just in time to get their uneducated a$$es back to the booth!

Whatever. Politicing is what it is, politicing. I'm thinking you better not be planning the victory party anytime soon. They'll lose some, but probably maintain the majority. Personally, I don't care who takes the majority, but we'll see......dman

*And, you hit the nail on the head with the administration. They are reacting in certian instances. I cannot stomach a reed in the wind. It's Okay to adjust your position in response to sound information and data, but NOT TO POLLS. Agreed, this is a mistake on the Bush admin's part. Reminds me of Hillary, she's the queen of the "reeds"....dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Never said anyone here cheered for the enemy. Made a comment about the left in general. There are those in our country who do desire for us to fall flat on our faces over there, that is undoubtedly cheering for the enemy..dman

You just never let up with the lies and bullsh*t, do you?

As a supporter of this corrupt administration, lying appears to be all you have left at this juncture.

It was primarily those Americans on the left who urged against invading Iraq in the first place - and mindless sheep like you responded by attacking our patriotism and calling us "traitors" for questioning the wisdom of such a serious decision.

It turned out that we were right and you were wrong, and >2,500 Americans have lost their lives and tens of thousands more have been maimed and crippled for life because of your stupidity and arrogance.

If anyone hates this country, it would be you and your fellow members of the radical right insofar as you have lent support to the crooks who have visited such suffering on our troops and on Iraq for no good reason.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You know, it has become obvious to us all that you are against Pres. Bush and the republican party, and for the most part ANYONE who supports Bush. Bush this, and Bush that. It's all Bush's fault.

It has become pretty obvious that this is your stock deflection whenever anyone points out the latest of numerous and repetitive frauds or felonies committed by some member the crooked administration and party you support.

People like you are easy to spot in this capacity because, when it comes to tactics, you all march in lockstep: Some republican or some member of Team Smirk and Sneer got caught doing something stupid or lllegal? No problem - just attack the person who exposes the offense. Change the subject. Deflect.

Same thing you hear Rehab Rush or Bill O'Liely or Sean Insannity or Joe Scarbor-ho doing 24/7/365.

I find it just amazing that you can find nothing good with the republicans, or GW.

Hilarious!

Show me one arena in which BushCo and the rethugs have done any appreciable good since they stole power.

(Tax cuts for the wealthy, $3.00 gas, and fat contracts for corporate cronies don't count.)


I can only surmize(sic) you absolutely "hate" him and the republicans. If so, well to be honest, your take cannot be taken realistically. Why? Very biased, and can't be trusted to give the real story based on your "hatred" of the Repubs and GW.

The foregoing statement summarizes why no educated person with two brain cells to rub together would take the twaddle you post seriously.

That is to say, my alleged personal "hatred" of some individual group has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsehood of claims I might make about said individual or group. Such alleged "hatred" has no bearing on whether or not my facts are in order in any given instance.

You are trying to argue, essentially, that if I hate someone then nothing I say about him can be factual or true.

In other words, if I claim that George W. Bush was Governor of Texas before he became POTUS, this claim should be regarded with suspicion simply because I made it.

I know third-grade children who could probably spot this sort of fallacy.

That's why I take most everything you say with several large grains of salt.