Ratio of Veteran Suicide to Battlefield Deaths Is 25 to 1

[ClydeR]

For every soldier killed on the battlefield this year, about 25 veterans are dying by their own hands.

An American soldier dies every day and a half, on average, in Iraq or Afghanistan. Veterans kill themselves at a rate of one every 80 minutes. More than 6,500 veteran suicides are logged every year — more than the total number of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq combined since those wars began.

More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/kristof-a-veterans-death-the-nations-shame.html)

I think the presidential candidates should discuss this. And they should suggest a way to address it.

Neither Obama nor Romney was ever a soldier. Obama was too young for the draft. Romney got a draft exemption as a minister of religion.

[Parkbandit]

I think the presidential candidates should discuss this. And they should suggest a way to address it.

Neither Obama nor Romney was ever a soldier. Obama was too young for the draft. Romney got a draft exemption as a minister of religion.

So, Obama couldn't join the armed forces?

[Ryvicke]

What do these soldiers expect? Entitlement programs for the rest of their lives to keep them happy? What do they want, WELFARE? Get over it and stop offing yourself, gramps.

Hehe, am I right PB? It's like--what have you done for me LATELY?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/nobody_boy/bakcotback.jpg

[Deathravin]

Damnit, ClydeR, you're slipping... You missed an excellent opportunity to insinuate that Obama was not a 'real american' and/or not a man for not being in the military and call into question his eligibility for even enlisting.

[Androidpk]

I think the presidential candidates should discuss this. And they should suggest a way to address it.

Nah, they'd rather talk about why we should go to war with Iran.

[Kembal]

So, Obama couldn't join the armed forces?

Same question could be asked of Romney.

[WRoss]

Shameless plug here, but my buddy that got killed a few weeks ago was a huge supporter of Veteran charities as he was a Vietnam vet himself. I am organizing a triathlon that gives all proceeds to Doctor's Without Borders and a yet to be determined charity for Veterans with PTSD and other mental disabilities. If you'd be interested in participating or donating, PM me and I'll update you when it gets the green light.

[Fallen]

Same question could be asked of Romney.

Was thinking the same thing. I'm sure the Armed forces has Mormon Chaplains.

[Latrinsorm]

It is entirely appropriate to respond to this situation with a movie quote.

It's a hell of a thing, killing a man.

[Tgo01]

I hear the Vietnam war was the only way people could join the military until the Afghanistan war started.

[Androidpk]

So, Obama couldn't join the armed forces?

Not without a valid birth certificate :)

[Parkbandit]

Same question could be asked of Romney.

Read the ClydeR post again. He insinuated that Obama simply wasn't old enough for the draft, but Romney was a draft dodger.

[Parkbandit]

What do these soldiers expect? Entitlement programs for the rest of their lives to keep them happy? What do they want, WELFARE? Get over it and stop offing yourself, gramps.

Hehe, am I right PB? It's like--what have you done for me LATELY?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/nobody_boy/bakcotback.jpg

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong, dipshit.

[Ryvicke]

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong, dipshit.

Glad to hear you've got a personal conviction outside of your party, buddy.

[Tgo01]

I think Ryvicke should turn off Rachel Maddow once in a while.

[Ryvicke]

I think Ryvicke should turn off Rachel Maddow once in a while.

WE HAVE MATCHING HAIRCUTS.

Okay, whatever dudes, fine--I'll be nicer in threads about veteran suicide. Still though, remember all those hilarious times in the last two years when the new batch of tea party reps were like 'if you want veterans' benefits you're going to have to show us the spending cuts you're taking it from' and people were like 'huh'?

Happened with the 9/11 responders and the Joplin tornado dec, as well. Just checking to see if any of you guys were totally soulless or not.

Also: just for the absolute PC record, I have never seen Rachel Maddow's show unless there was a clip on The Daily Show at some point.

[Tgo01]

WE HAVE MATCHING HAIRCUTS.

Holy shit you're right!

33323333

[Ryvicke]

I heard she plays tons of Nintendo DS and her closet in her circa-2006 Brooklyn bedroom was also actually just one of those bars you wheel into the room.

Also: we're both lesbians.

[Parkbandit]

Glad to hear you've got a personal conviction outside of your party, buddy.

Actually, it's your party that tends to be anti-military/veteran.

You seem to have problems understanding the definition of very simple words... it's not a handout when you've earned it.. which is exactly what veterans have done.

[Parkbandit]

I think Ryvicke should turn off Rachel Maddow once in a while.

And Hardball

And Ed

And Countdown (Oh.. that was cancelled.. so sad)

[Ryvicke]

Actually, it's your party that tends to be anti-military/veteran.

You seem to have problems understanding the definition of very simple words... it's not a handout when you've earned it.. which is exactly what veterans have done.

Completely agree with you (except anyone paying attention knows Dems are the vets' party now)--looking forward to you giving it to Republicans that try to cut veteran's benefits in every House budget for the next 2.5 years.

[Tgo01]

Still though, remember all those hilarious times in the last two years when the new batch of tea party reps were like 'if you want veterans' benefits you're going to have to show us the spending cuts you're taking it from' and people were like 'huh'?

What exactly are you referring to with this statement anyway? The closest thing I could find about Republicans wanting to cut veterans benefits was this (http://peoplesworld.org/republicans-pledge-to-slash-veterans-benefits/) "story" from peoplesworld.org which I'm assuming is a heavily left leaning site that just makes up shit as they go along, sort of like Rachel Maddow.

Some highlights from the article.


GOP leaders vowed in their "Pledge to America" that, if they take power, they will cut veterans' benefits because they are not "paid for."


Republican Party leaders have vowed to cut non-military federal spending, including veterans benefits, in order to pay for new tax breaks for the very rich and for corporations that move jobs overseas.

Then I find this (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-23/politics/gop.campaign.pledge_1_gop-leaders-stimulus-bill-house-gop?_s=PM:POLITICS) article from CNN which says


House Republicans sought to recapture the spirit of their 1994 election landslide Thursday, unveiling a 21-page "Pledge to America" that includes promises to slash taxes, cut government and reverse President Barack Obama's health care reforms.

...

They pushed a domestic spending freeze, with the exception of certain politically sensitive programs such as veterans' benefits.

Then there is this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-27/supercommittee-deficit-boehner-pelosi/50965534/1) article about the Super Committee which discusses how both sides wanted smaller future cost of living increases for veterans, but doesn't discuss cutting veterans benefits.

There is this (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/dems-gop-fight-over-homeless-vets/) GOP budget bill that "would not fund 10,000 new housing vouchers for homeless veterans this fiscal year as Congress has done every year since 2008."

With various Democrats making claims such as


Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California wrongly claimed the GOP bill would result in "10,000 veterans who literally could be in the streets and die."

However


The program has enough vouchers from previous years to carry it through fiscal year 2011. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) says the program has accumulated nearly 30,000 vouchers since its inception in 2008 and it will take until November or December for them to be used for housing veterans. That's after the 2011 fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.

There is also this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-obama-wants-cut-veterans-benefi/) gem from Obama.


In that plan, Obama proposed three possible "reforms" or increases in fees in military programs:

* A new $200 annual fee for TRICARE for Life recipients. Open to veterans 65 and older, TRICARE for Life pays out-of-pocket expenses not covered by Medicare. This proposed fee is estimated to save approximately $6.7 billion over 10 years, according to the plan.

* Increases in pharmacy co-pays. The plan says "co-payments for military members have lagged behind other federal and private plans. For example, the average co-payment for a costly brand-name drug purchased at a drug store by a federal retiree in the most popular medical plan option is estimated to be $45, compared to $9 for a military retiree."

* Review and reform military retirement benefits. The current system, the plan states, "provides generous benefits to the relatively few members who stay for at least 20 years and no benefits for the roughly 80 percent of service members who stay less than 20 years. To consider reforms the Administration plans to set up a commission to develop recommendations for reforming the current military retirement system." We should add that the president suggests grandfathering in those now serving so that major reforms don’t affect them.

Of course this is all just a technicality because those are DoD programs, not veteran affairs programs.

[Kembal]

Read the ClydeR post again. He insinuated that Obama simply wasn't old enough for the draft, but Romney was a draft dodger.

1. Obama was too young to enlist or be drafted for the Vietnam war. He was born in August 1961, and the Vietnam War ended on April 30, 1975.

2. I read your question as whether Obama could have enlisted later, once he was old enough.

Most people of Romney's age served in the military due to the draft, or got an exemption somehow. The ClydeR persona's statement that Romney got an exemption because of X reason is a factual statement. (I actually didn't know why Romney wasn't drafted until I read that post.)

If you'd like to judge them by the same standard (military service), then it's a valid question as to why neither chose to do so.

[Ryvicke]

What exactly are you referring to with this statement anyway? The closest thing I could find about Republicans wanting to cut veterans benefits was this (http://peoplesworld.org/republicans-pledge-to-slash-veterans-benefits/) "story" from peoplesworld.org which I'm assuming is a heavily left leaning site that just makes up shit as they go along, sort of like Rachel Maddow.

Some highlights from the article.

Then I find this (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-23/politics/gop.campaign.pledge_1_gop-leaders-stimulus-bill-house-gop?_s=PM:POLITICS) article from CNN which says

Then there is this (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-10-27/supercommittee-deficit-boehner-pelosi/50965534/1) article about the Super Committee which discusses how both sides wanted smaller future cost of living increases for veterans, but doesn't discuss cutting veterans benefits.

There is this (http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/dems-gop-fight-over-homeless-vets/) GOP budget bill that "would not fund 10,000 new housing vouchers for homeless veterans this fiscal year as Congress has done every year since 2008."

With various Democrats making claims such as

However

There is also this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-obama-wants-cut-veterans-benefi/) gem from Obama.

Of course this is all just a technicality because those are DoD programs, not veteran affairs programs.

Tgo--total props for digging up all those links. You continue to be the best of the worst, and easily the only one that goes around digging up facts to actually make interesting posts.

So, we'll begin by quoting what you left out of your last link from politifact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/20/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-obama-wants-cut-veterans-benefi/):


Obama’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 increases the overall Veterans Affairs budget by more than 10 percent. The numbers are big: from $53 billion in FY 2010 to almost $59 billion in FY 2012.

It provides new benefits for veterans’ caregivers, including health care and mental health services, and invests nearly $1 billion in VA services for homeless veterans and those at risk of becoming homeless.

The White House pointed us to several examples of how VA services have been beefed up, summed up in a comment Obama made in 2009:

"We dramatically increased funding for veterans' health care: more care for women's veterans, for our wounded warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries," Obama said at a 2009 signing of a bill that funds veterans’ medical care a year in advance.

Separately, PolitiFact has given Obama seven Promise Kept ratings on pledges he made to improve services to veterans, compared with zero Promise Brokens.

So, to my original quote, about the Tea Party Caucus (and its founder, Michele Bachmann) cutting veteran's dollars (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/01/military-bachmann-veterans-groups-012811w/):


A proposal to cut $4.5 billion from Veterans Affairs Department health programs to reduce government spending has earned a quick, sharp rebuke from major veterans groups.

Proposed by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., the freeze in veterans health care funding — along with a cut in disability compensation for veterans also receiving Social Security disability benefits — are part of a $400 billion package of spending cuts that the tea party leader says could be enacted to avoid increasing the $14.3 trillion cap on government borrowing.

Disabled American Veterans called Bachmann’s ideas “ill-advised,” “nothing short of heartless” and “wrong-headed.”

So that's from Army Times, the most purchased newspaper in overseas military shops and defense commissaries, BUT, the same story was reported pretty much everywhere else, including the Conservative DEFENDERS OF TRUTHINESS:

Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/29/bachmann-takes-heat-veterans-group-proposing-benefits-cuts/)
The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-bachmann-takes-heat-for-floating-idea-of-cuts-in-veterans-benefits/)

I bolded it above, but it's all about the economics of austerity, which has been proven by economists the world over to be exactly the wrong thing to do during any recession (see currently: Greece and Europe killing itself). The Tea Party buys this shit hook line and sinker because the average tea party member doesn't know shit about how economies function and are easily scared by Fox News and The Blaze, which just repeat huge numbers over and over again while the "pretty lady" anchors put on their best distressed face.

So when else have House Republicans stared into the reality of veteran's cuts and shrugged? You can point to the sequestration, in which they refused to budge on extending payroll cuts and triggered the defense cuts. I'm not going to put a specific link here cause I don't feel like cherrypicking only the one that agrees with me--but the cuts were there specifically so the super-committee would come to an agreement and they didn't. Why didn't they? Because tea party Republicans wouldn't agree to extend the tax cuts for working families (http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2011/12/22/house-republicans-cave-on-tax-cut-extension/) until the last possible second. Just the language of that headline "caves to the President on extending tax cuts for working families".

You know how fucked up that is? This is the same party that floats tax cuts to millionaires without a second though, but slogging through the last year of deadline after deadline battling these fucks to extend help to the middle class? Unconscionable.

When anyone mentions Republicans helping veterans they're specifically referring to vets that run billion dollar defense contractors, who turn around and donate tens of millions back to Republicans. Republicans don't give a fuck about average veterans or working families--that's become clear over the last two years.

[AnticorRifling]

I was sitting in class last night (Western Civ) and my buddy in class is a former Army medic. He and I sit next to one another and basically shoot the shit and crack jokes during every class we've had. At one point in last night's discussions the students were arguing something so stupid that my buddy leaned over to me and said "Holy shit now I get why soldiers come home and off themselves...this is what we fought for".

[Tgo01]

So, to my original quote, about the Tea Party Caucus (and its founder, Michele Bachmann) cutting veteran's dollars (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/01/military-bachmann-veterans-groups-012811w/):

So you come up with a proposal on Michele Bachmann's website of all places? She's like the Joe Biden of the Republican party.


When anyone mentions Republicans helping veterans they're specifically referring to vets that run billion dollar defense contractors, who turn around and donate tens of millions back to Republicans. Republicans don't give a fuck about average veterans or working families--that's become clear over the last two years.

Maybe I've just become jaded in my old age but I don't think either party really gives a shit about anyone other than how to get their votes.

[ClydeR]

Most people of Romney's age served in the military due to the draft, or got an exemption somehow. The ClydeR persona's statement that Romney got an exemption because of X reason is a factual statement. (I actually didn't know why Romney wasn't drafted until I read that post.)

The Kembal persona is exactly right. Since there seems to be a lot of interest in this topic, I will elaborate.

Romney got a draft exemption to be a "minister (http://www.dailypaul.com/199332/mitt-romney-spent-the-vietnam-war-in-a-french-palace)" so he could spend two years in a mansion (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074770/Mitt-Romney-lived-Mormon-palace-chef-houseboy-1960s-France-mission.html) in a prosperous area of France going door to door and bugging people to stop being Christians and become Mormons. Romney was in France at the exact same time John McCain was in a prisoner-of-war camp in Vietnam.

That's not to say that Romney didn't support the war, though. Two months before he left for France, he participated in a counter-protest against the cowardly hippies who opposed the Vietnam War. He wasn't involved in the protest until the news reporters showed up, and then he volunteered to be the spokesperson for the counter-protesters.


If you like Romney, then you will not want to believe it, but it's 102% true.



Carey Coulter, a conservative and anti-Communist student who had spent time as a civilian in Vietnam, was outraged and organized a counter-protest.

"We were there to get an education and these people holding the Administration hostage was antithetical to that," he recalled to BuzzFeed in his first interview about the day.

As the roughly 150 counter-protesters held signs and chatted with passing students, a tall, neatly-dressed 19-year old Coulter had never seen before approached him.

"He walked up to me and said that he had some experience with the press, and that he would handle the press for me if I wanted him to," Coulter recalled. "I said fine, because I was busy running the demonstration."

Romney spoke to reporters and photographers, and wound up with his and Coulter's names in an Associated Press photo caption that circulated with the picture above, in which Romney holds a sign at the far right.

"He just saw the demonstration, was sympathetic to it obviously, and came up," Coulter said. He added that Romney hadn't made the sign he's carrying in the photograph.

Romney hadn't organized the protest, and wasn't part of Coulter's later efforts to beat back a growing student anti-war movement.

"I don’t recall ever seeing him again," Coulter said of Romney, who spent just a year at Stanford and enrolled after his mission in France at Brigham Young University.

More... (http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/exclusive-mitt-romney-student-protester)



Just for fun, Vietnam photos and contemporary Romney photos set to Credence's Fortunate Son.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvv2T4jttXA

[Parkbandit]

1. Obama was too young to enlist or be drafted for the Vietnam war. He was born in August 1961, and the Vietnam War ended on April 30, 1975.

2. I read your question as whether Obama could have enlisted later, once he was old enough.

Most people of Romney's age served in the military due to the draft, or got an exemption somehow. The ClydeR persona's statement that Romney got an exemption because of X reason is a factual statement. (I actually didn't know why Romney wasn't drafted until I read that post.)

If you'd like to judge them by the same standard (military service), then it's a valid question as to why neither chose to do so.

Here is the post:



Neither Obama nor Romney was ever a soldier. Obama was too young for the draft. Romney got a draft exemption as a minister of religion.

Are you suggesting that ClydeR didn't paint Obama in a more positive light (it's not his fault!) than he did Romney? It's what ClydeR does.. and seriously, if you can't see this.. then I'm not sure we have much to discuss.

It's pretty obvious to most people.

[Ryvicke]

Are you suggesting that ClydeR didn't paint Obama in a more positive light (it's not his fault!) than he did Romney? It's what ClydeR does.. and seriously, if you can't see this.. then I'm not sure we have much to discuss.

It's pretty obvious to most people.

What did Kembal write that made it seem like he didn't understand the obvious (and effective) tone that ClydeR uses? Why are you creating strawmen again?

ClydeR posted two facts and you acted like the facts were somehow slanted (and you still are) and then Kembal posted the backup for the facts. How are you still confused?

[Parkbandit]

What did Kembal write that made it seem like he didn't understand the obvious (and effective) tone that ClydeR uses? Why are you creating strawmen again?

ClydeR posted two facts and you acted like the facts were somehow slanted (and you still are) and then Kembal posted the backup for the facts. How are you still confused?

No one expects someone like you to understand. It's like talking rocket science to a 3 year old.

Please stop posting. You would look far less foolish.

[Tgo01]

Most people of Romney's age served in the military due to the draft, or got an exemption somehow.

Even though what you say is true you phrased it in a very misleading way. Most men (I assume you meant men) of Romney's age served because of the draft...or got an exemption. Well yeah, that covers all of your bases. You phrased it to sound like most men served and the number that got an exemption was low. Actually the bit about the draft is untrue anyways, most people in the military during the Vietnam war were still volunteers.

However (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Vietnam_War)


According to the Veteran's Administration, 9.2 million men served in the military between 1964 and 1975. Nearly 3.5 million men served in the Vietnam theater of operations. From a pool of approximately 27 million, the draft raised 2,215,000 men for military service during the Vietnam era. It has also been credited with "encouraging" many of the 8.7 million "volunteers" to join rather than risk being drafted.[citation needed]

Of the nearly 16 million men not engaged in active military service, 96% were exempted (typically because of jobs including other military service), deferred (usually for educational reasons), or disqualified (usually for physical and mental deficiencies but also for criminal records to include draft violations). Draft offenders in the last category numbered nearly 500,000 but less than 10,000 were convicted or imprisoned for draft violations. Finally, as many as 100,000 draft eligible males fled the country.


If you'd like to judge them by the same standard (military service), then it's a valid question as to why neither chose to do so.

That's fine, we can look at them both and say "Hey, why didn't you serve?" However Clyder very obviously was trying to make Romney look like a draft dodger and that Obama was simply too young to serve during the Vietnam war, almost as if Obama could never join the military after the war or something so he gets a pass altogether. That's fine that Clyder was doing that, it's what he does best after all, however you took that and ran with it. Bad Kembal, bad!

[Ryvicke]

However Clyder very obviously was trying to make Romney look like a draft dodger and that Obama was simply too young to serve during the Vietnam war, almost as if Obama could never join the military after the war or something so he gets a pass altogether. That's fine that Clyder was doing that, it's what he does best after all, however you took that and ran with it. Bad Kembal, bad!

How did Kembal take it and run with it? By posting source information after PB had a senior moment and got confused?

Anyone with a brain understands that both men had the opportunity to serve and did not, ClydeR's liberal bias doesn't make the facts of their non-existent Vietnam service any less factual: Romney dodged, Obama was too young. Fin.

[ClydeR]

Actually the bit about the draft is untrue anyways, most people in the military during the Vietnam war were still volunteers.

The main point is that there was a war and a draft when Romney was a young man and none when Obama was a young man. We don't know whether or not Obama would have been patriotic to volunteer. We know for sure that Romney was not. But he was sure patriotic enough to condemn those who were against the war.

My one regret is that I was too young to volunteer and go to Vietnam.

[Tgo01]

How did Kembal take it and run with it? By posting source information after PB had a senior moment and got confused?

PB was not making excuses for Romney but rather was poking holes in Clyders obvious attempt at making an excuse for Obama. Kembal basically replied with "Well why DIDN'T Romney serve" then went into this whole thing about how most men Romney's age were drafted and yadda yadda yadda. Again very obviously trying to say that Romney SHOULD have served while Obama was too young then simply chose not to serve.

Fin.

[Ryvicke]

So, Obama couldn't join the armed forces?


Same question could be asked of Romney.


Read the ClydeR post again. He insinuated that Obama simply wasn't old enough for the draft, but Romney was a draft dodger.


1. Obama was too young to enlist or be drafted for the Vietnam war. He was born in August 1961, and the Vietnam War ended on April 30, 1975.

2. I read your question as whether Obama could have enlisted later, once he was old enough.

Most people of Romney's age served in the military due to the draft, or got an exemption somehow. The ClydeR persona's statement that Romney got an exemption because of X reason is a factual statement. (I actually didn't know why Romney wasn't drafted until I read that post.)

If you'd like to judge them by the same standard (military service), then it's a valid question as to why neither chose to do so.

Tgo--those are all the PB and Kembal posts on the matter (between which was my and your posts where we became good friends, which may have confused you from tracking the PB/Kembal conversation properly). You're welcome.

[Tgo01]

My one regret is that I was too young to volunteer and go to Vietnam.

I thought Canada didn't fight in the Vietnam war anyways?

[Parkbandit]

PB was not making excuses for Romney but rather was poking holes in Clyders obvious attempt at making an excuse for Obama. Kembal basically replied with "Well why DIDN'T Romney serve" then went into this whole thing about how most men Romney's age were drafted and yadda yadda yadda. Again very obviously trying to say that Romney SHOULD have served while Obama was too young then simply chose not to serve.

Fin.

It's beyond his capabilities... don't bother. Everyone else got it.. give him a few more years of school and hopefully he will be able to as well.

[Kembal]

Even though what you say is true you phrased it in a very misleading way. Most men (I assume you meant men) of Romney's age served because of the draft...or got an exemption. Well yeah, that covers all of your bases. You phrased it to sound like most men served and the number that got an exemption was low. Actually the bit about the draft is untrue anyways, most people in the military during the Vietnam war were still volunteers.

However (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#Vietnam_War)

You're correct, I should've said men, and I was wrong about the proportion of draftees versus enlistments. (though yeah, I suspect the article is correct in stating that the draft encouraged a lot of men to volunteer.) I'm not sure the article is clear about how many got exemptions versus how many got deferrals.




That's fine, we can look at them both and say "Hey, why didn't you serve?" However Clyder very obviously was trying to make Romney look like a draft dodger and that Obama was simply too young to serve during the Vietnam war, almost as if Obama could never join the military after the war or something so he gets a pass altogether. That's fine that Clyder was doing that, it's what he does best after all, however you took that and ran with it. Bad Kembal, bad!

I don't really care what the ClydeR persona was trying to insinuate. (it was fairly obvious, and as I stated a long time ago, I don't treat his posts that seriously.) PB asked a valid question as to whether Obama could have enlisted later. To which I pointed out, the same question can be asked of Romney.

I actually don't think military service is that much of a qualification for political office. (It's certainly not harmful, but just because someone served in the military doesn't automatically make them a better candidate than someone who didn't.) But if you do believe that it is a strong indicator of fitness for public office, then the question needs to be asked of both candidates as to why they didn't serve.

[Kembal]

Here is the post:



Are you suggesting that ClydeR didn't paint Obama in a more positive light (it's not his fault!) than he did Romney? It's what ClydeR does.. and seriously, if you can't see this.. then I'm not sure we have much to discuss.

It's pretty obvious to most people.

I did see it. I don't pay much attention to his insinuations or respond to his posts. (unless he gets a pretty funny post together, which is starting to get more rare these days.) In the end to me, Romney got an exemption. It's a fact that he got one. (so did at least one college professor of mine (clerked for a federal judge and got an exemption).) The fact that they got exemptions does not bother me.

On the topic, if you believe military service is important, then it's valid to ask both candidates why neither chose to serve, not just Obama or just Romney.

[Tgo01]

(though yeah, I suspect the article is correct in stating that the draft encouraged a lot of men to volunteer.)

That bit in Wikipedia says "citation needed" and sounds like some hippie threw it in there.


I'm not sure the article is clear about how many got exemptions versus how many got deferrals.

Not sure it really matters, 1/3 of the men who were of age served in the military during the Vietnam war, 2/3 did not serve and of those 2/3 96% got a deferral or exemption for one reason or another.

[Parkbandit]

I did see it. I don't pay much attention to his insinuations or respond to his posts. (unless he gets a pretty funny post together, which is starting to get more rare these days.) In the end to me, Romney got an exemption. It's a fact that he got one. (so did at least one college professor of mine (clerked for a federal judge and got an exemption).) The fact that they got exemptions does not bother me.

On the topic, if you believe military service is important, then it's valid to ask both candidates why neither chose to serve, not just Obama or just Romney.

The point you still fail to understand was that my posting WAS IN RESPONSE TO CLYDER'S POST. I didn't say my beliefs about the Commander in Chief having previously served in the armed forces.. I was merely responding to ClydeR's (I would say failed attempt to paint Obama in a better light than Romney.. but since he did get a couple idiots, I am forced to give him props) post. Nothing more.

[Kembal]

The point you still fail to understand was that my posting WAS IN RESPONSE TO CLYDER'S POST. I didn't say my beliefs about the Commander in Chief having previously served in the armed forces.. I was merely responding to ClydeR's (I would say failed attempt to paint Obama in a better light than Romney.. but since he did get a couple idiots, I am forced to give him props) post. Nothing more.

Ok, if that's how you justify responding to ClydeR in your head, go with it. I still can't believe that you think it's important to respond to him.

[Parkbandit]

Ok, if that's how you justify responding to ClydeR in your head, go with it. I still can't believe that you think it's important to respond to him.

Where did I post that it's "important" to respond to him?

[ClydeR]

My small comment about Mitt Romney being a pro-war chickenhawk draft dodger, coupled with Ted Nugent's recent comments at the NRA convention, have caused an explosion of interest in Romney's Vietnam hypocrisy. It is taking the Twittersphere by storm.

http://twitter.com/search/romney%20vietnam%20draft

[Kembal]

Where did I post that it's "important" to respond to him?

It's implied in that fact that you actually respond and challenge him on what he says, as opposed to most of the rest of the forum ignoring what he specifically says and just discussing the topic in general (or just go completely off-topic).

[Parkbandit]

It's implied in that fact that you actually respond and challenge him on what he says, as opposed to most of the rest of the forum ignoring what he specifically says and just discussing the topic in general (or just go completely off-topic).

Hey.. you didn't understand ClydeR's post and my reply. We get it. You can keep Ryvicke company in the "special" classroom that has crayons and plastic scissors.

PS - Please don't take this reply as my belief that it is important to me to reply to your nonsense. It's no more important than me replying to ClydeR or anyone else on this board.

[Kembal]

Hey.. you didn't understand ClydeR's post and my reply. We get it. You can keep Ryvicke company in the "special" classroom that has crayons and plastic scissors.

PS - Please don't take this reply as my belief that it is important to me to reply to your nonsense. It's no more important than me replying to ClydeR or anyone else on this board.

Right. You're almost singlehandedly keeping the whole ClydeR thing alive, and you've got blinders on about it. What else is new?