Dear friends.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The last post is the WINNER!
- Thread starter ninerbuff
- Start date
another win on the way to a winning four-digit page...
As usual.
The presidency isn't military service, the
title notwithstanding. So why would Hillary
want to become Prez, given that she too
avoided serving.
The only difference was that she used gender
instead of infirmity to avoid the draft.
It's about military service. Democrats have
said that's important for a Prez, except for
Biden & Hillary.
They have triple standards going on here.
Your position hasn't been all that clear.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
Deep thoughts with Daemon Sophic.
Am I winning, when my competition is a bunch of losers?
Under those kilts is a sexist that suffers from the need to be different. It's a Revoltestonian flaw due to too much haggis and beet juice.
You,as usual, misspelled 'cakes'....
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
you, as usual, have no idea what spelunking is
The revolting one is missing, maybe he was the casualty?
We're in the interregnum between "tick tick tick" and an ALMIGHTY boom.
Well, if you'd just read what I write without jumping to conclusions or making any assumptions about my own stance, this wouldn't happen. One thing to keep in mind is that if I ever make a statement where I point out that "some people" or "many people" believe something, it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm talking about myself (whereas you always seem to think that I am).
I don't know; you'd have to ask her. However, I've always thought it hypocritical for people who supposedly take a principled stance in opposing war in their youth, yet still aspire to become the Warmonger-in-Chief later in life. I consider the Clintons as symbolic of those who were once very much anti-war in their youth, but then sold out to the warmongering establishment later in life. Before joining the establishment, they should have started a revolution first.
I don't know that she "used" anything at all.
That's because you keep jumping to conclusion about what you erroneously believe to be my position.
As I recall, one of the first major candidates to be criticized for this was Dan Quayle, although I recall he was in the National Guard, which allowed him to avoid being sent overseas. The criticism revolved around him being a child of privilege, so therefore he didn't have to do the dirty work they were sending lower-class recruits and draftees to do.
Then when Clinton came on the scene, he faced similar criticisms, but on a somewhat different level, since Bill and Hillary were both known to be anti-war protesters during the 1960s. Yet Clinton ordered various military actions during his tenure in office, so I guess he wasn't quite so "anti-war" as he trying to pass himself off.