Mittman made an unfortunate syntax error that his opponents will use. Big deal. That's the
way politics works these days. If Obama did the same thing, you'd be hearing about that
from the other side.
Well, the five Romney sons have already done their duty to their country when they were
along for the ride when he ran in 2008, so they have already served.
Vrede, what's your point? Clinton was not inhaling pot while hiding out in academia during the Vietnam era and he became POTUS. Bush II hid out in the ANG. Avoiding military service is in vogue for those who aspire to be the POTUS. Obama didn't serve either. Just because our country is not at war doesn't mean an indivdual shouldn't serve.
Reality wrote:I see no comment as to why Obama didn't serve?
I see the point is still sailing far over your head. Doves don't bother me, hawks only bother me some, chickenhawks are the worst.
Another words Vrede has no answer and does what she does best, twists and denies. So answer the question vrede.
If Obama can send Americans to other countries where we now KNOW there was inadequate protection and protection denied just to be murdered then lie about it the question is valid.
No Vrede the point is you, as always, talk around anything and everything that draws an analogy that presents the left the same as the right or, in this case, service to one's country whether a hawk or a dove. Obama didn't serve, Clinton didn't serve, and Romney didn't serve. Bush II hid in the Guard. Hawk or Dove is irrevelant.
Dove's can serve also you know but refusing to fight would definitely eliminate one's chance of running for POTUS now wouldn't it.
Doesn't seem to bother Prince Harry nor any males of the Royal Family for that matter to serve their country.
Evidently you cannot read. I'm not defending Romney but I'm not attacking him either as you are when the side you support has done, or not done as the case may be, the same thing.
About the Royal Family The monarch is by tradition Commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. Evidently they take that responsibility very seriously.
Tertius wrote:Why didn't Obama's black grandparents raise him? It seems few mulatto children abandon by parents end up with black grandparents. Why is that?
So dying of uterine cancer is to the rightwing extremist's mind... abandonment... .
Really Huge.. is there a limit to how low you radicals will sink???
Tertius wrote:Why didn't Obama's black grandparents raise him? It seems few mulatto children abandon by parents end up with black grandparents. Why is that?
So dying of uterine cancer is to the rightwing extremist's mind... abandonment... .
Really Huge.. is there a limit to how low you radicals will sink???
Our point is a fallacy because my statement was generalization to pose a question. You picked an exception where the mother died. But using your example why did Obama, Sr. abandon a sick wife and his child? Such are common why.
Tertius wrote:Why didn't Obama's black grandparents raise him? It seems few mulatto children abandon by parents end up with black grandparents. Why is that?
It seems you're making a statement that borders on racism without anything other than your biased personal opinion to support you.
SSDD. Typical.
Now, as to your question, why should Obama's black grandparents raise him. He was in another country, over 10,000 miles away, with affluent grandparents who had been helping to raise him since his birth. Why on earth should some grandparents he'd never seen whisk him 10,000 miles to relative poverty in a completely different culture.
Look up "traumatic" in the dictionary. Also, peruse "straw man" and "common frickin' sense."
Tertius wrote:Why didn't Obama's black grandparents raise him? It seems few mulatto children abandon by parents end up with black grandparents. Why is that?
It seems you're making a statement that borders on racism without anything other than your biased personal opinion to support you.
SSDD. Typical.
Now, as to your question, why should Obama's black grandparents raise him. He was in another country, over 10,000 miles away, with affluent grandparents who had been helping to raise him since his birth. Why on earth should some grandparents he'd never seen whisk him 10,000 miles to relative poverty in a completely different culture.
Look up "traumatic" in the dictionary. Also, peruse "straw man" and "common frickin' sense."
Obama's mother seemed to defend his father in spite of his absence.
It seems few mulatto children abandon by parents end up with black grandparents. Why is that?
I ask a question. You do not answer it. You accuse me of racism but do not answer the question. You make this accusation without foundation.
I remember when blacks objected to white families adopting black children. Why was that? I think more white couples adopt black children than the reverse. Is that true or not? If true why? If it is because fewer black families can afford to adopt which I think is true then why object.
If you object to these questions because they reflect reality then why?
I qualified every statement leaving room to be corrected as mistaken. Did you answer with objective evidence that my statement is incorrect? No! You went straight to the race card. That is why these discussions are so consumed with ad hominems. You liberals are fond of the "F". I understand when speaking, the word can come out from pure emotion but not when writing. When writing it is a sign of pure inability and insecurity.
Tertius wrote:...It seems few mulatto children abandon by parents end up with black grandparents. Why is that?
I ask a question. You do not answer it. You accuse me of racism but do not answer the question. You make this accusation without foundation...
You first. What foundation have you offered for your claim?
Observations from acquaintances. Which is why I used the word "seems." I thought a more knowledgable person on the subject would reply. I now know I was wrong about that.
Reality wrote:I see no comment as to why Obama didn't serve?
Maybe you know. I don't. But if you want to talk about Obama, go ahead. Contribute something. But probably the reason Obama didn't serve in the military (other than being Commander in Chief) - or for anyone his age - is likely to be different from anyone Romney's age. Times change. The military changes. In 1983 or so, there was no draft. No major war eating up lives like pouring diamonds down a drain. Military service was more of a career choice than a patriotic move. I've got no problem with anyone making an effort to get out of the draft back then, nor for that matter much concern about how they did it. But I think you've been around long enough to know that times then were a bit different from WWII, Korea, or subsequent times.
But in the meantime, tell us if there is any topic - any - that your response isn't "yeah, and what about Obama?" So far, it hasn't appeared on the "Camping" thread, but I don't think you've posted there yet so there's still time tonight.
Reality wrote:I see no comment as to why Obama didn't serve?
Maybe you know. I don't. But if you want to talk about Obama, go ahead. Contribute something. But probably the reason Obama didn't serve in the military (other than being Commander in Chief) - or for anyone his age - is likely to be different from anyone Romney's age. Times change. The military changes. In 1983 or so, there was no draft. No major war eating up lives like pouring diamonds down a drain. Military service was more of a career choice than a patriotic move. I've got no problem with anyone making an effort to get out of the draft back then, nor for that matter much concern about how they did it. But I think you've been around long enough to know that times then were a bit different from WWII, Korea, or subsequent times.
But in the meantime, tell us if there is any topic - any - that your response isn't "yeah, and what about Obama?" So far, it hasn't appeared on the "Camping" thread, but I don't think you've posted there yet so there's still time tonight.
Every man should serve; no man should be forced to serve.
Tertius wrote:Every man should serve; no man should be forced to serve.
I'd argue that every person should somehow serve.
.
I'd agree with that - I don't even have much of a problem with the "forced to" part. But there's a difference in "serving" ones country and being employed by the government. Not everyone who is in the military "serves" and many serve who are not in the military. But I'd definitely go for a requirement that everybody spend a couple of years doing something the country needs done. And no, I don't have details on how such a program might work or how it would ever in this lifetime get passed by Congress.
Tertius wrote:Why didn't Obama's black grandparents raise him? It seems few mulatto children abandon by parents end up with black grandparents. Why is that?
It seems you're making a statement that borders on racism without anything other than your biased personal opinion to support you.
SSDD. Typical.
Now, as to your question, why should Obama's black grandparents raise him. He was in another country, over 10,000 miles away, with affluent grandparents who had been helping to raise him since his birth. Why on earth should some grandparents he'd never seen whisk him 10,000 miles to relative poverty in a completely different culture.
Look up "traumatic" in the dictionary. Also, peruse "straw man" and "common frickin' sense."
Obama's mother seemed to defend his father in spite of his absence.
Duh. That's what a smart person does. You don't trash a kid's parent. The kid absorbs that.
It seems few mulatto children abandon by parents end up with black grandparents. Why is that?
It "seems" that way to you because you're ignorant and have no knowledge of the situation.
Exaclty how many "mulattoes" have you known who were abandoned by their parents and raised by their black parents? I wonder how big this lie will be.
And what happened to your even dumber speculation on why some unknown grandparents would travel halfway around the world to whisk an unknown grandchild away from everyone he knew and loved and drop him in a completely different culture?
I ask a question. You do not answer it. You accuse me of racism but do not answer the question. You make this accusation without foundation.
The question was too stupid to answer. I kind of pointed that out.
I make the accusation with foundation because you are making racial speculations based on your own biases, not on any facts. Stereotypical judgments not based on evidence -- that's kind of a textbook definition of racism.
I remember when blacks objected to white families adopting black children. Why was that?
Because of possible difficulties for the child.
I think more white couples adopt black children than the reverse. Is that true or not?
I don't know. Why don't you bother looking up a fact every now and then. It's called "research." Most honest, responsible people do it before they shoot off their mouths.
If true why? If it is because fewer black families can afford to adopt which I think is true then why object.
No one's objecting. Why invent more straw men? Did you suddenly realize how lame your contentions were?
If you object to these questions because they reflect reality then why?
Your questions don't reflect reality. For example, look at this question you just asked: "If you object to these questions because they reflect reality then why?" Nothing about it reflects reality.
I objected to the questions because they were stupid and without foundation in fact or common sense.
I qualified every statement leaving room to be corrected as mistaken.
That's an awfully pitiful excuse. Sounds rather cowardly "I just said a bunch of really stupid stuff that I can't even begin to prove, but I qualified it, so I'm covered."
A man ought to be responsible for his actions and his words ... unless, of course, the person is a Republican bashing a Democrat or "liberal."
Did you answer with objective evidence that my statement is incorrect?
That's not the way debate, logic, and rational thought work. You make the statement. If called, it's your responsibility to prove what you said. They're your words.
More Republican cowardice in action.
There's a whole covey of bigfoots having a kegger / barbecue in my backyard. Now, it's your job to "prove" that's not true. Brilliant. And you probably still don't see the logical fallacy.
No! You went straight to the race card.
Duh. You went straight to racial assumptions based on know evidence.
And you're still running from the dumbest question you asked.
That is why these discussions are so consumed with ad hominems.
Again abnegating all responsibility for your own words. You post "stupid," but then whine when someone calls you on it.
If you had a spine, you would man up and accept responsibility for what you said instead of trying to weasel out of it.
You liberals are fond of the "F". I understand when speaking, the word can come out from pure emotion but not when writing. When writing it is a sign of pure inability and insecurity.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to soothe your fragile little ego. I'm feeling pretty secure in my abilities after dealing with your misfires.
And please find plenty of excuses why you shouldn't be held accountable for the failure of your logic and words. I'm sure there are plenty of "excuses" that you'll believe and cling to out of sheer desperation.
Last edited by Stinger on Sat Oct 20, 2012 9:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
