Saddened by the responses of the right!

[demgurl]

I have been trying to fight the good fight on another board, but their replies are just insulting if you ask me. When you say that Bush really was AWOL, they reply such things as :

Wow did they ever blow it... this shouldn't have come out for another 2-3 months in order to have any real impact on the election. By then it'll all be but forgotten Assuming anyone would really care about it in the first place

Look people, whether or not Kerry or Bush did any time in the military is a non-issue. The Prez has people around him who make military decisions.

I DONT F***ING CARE.

And

he lies, so it's no surprise. I don't really care what he did in the 70s... politicians should just do a press release when they decide to run and air all their dirty laundry right away so it gets buzzed over for awhile and then forgotten by the time they start campaigning.


All of these answers are from : http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=378309

These answers really sadden me. I know they have to say they do not care because they do not have any information saying anything contrary to what was op.

People should take more pride in their country than to say they do not care or they expect him to lie! What has our wonderful country come to?

They are saying they know he is a liar and yet they do not care. Well, they sure cared when Clinton was in office.

They say military training does not matter. Glad they feel that way since lack of training (and brains) is most likely what caused shrub to sit dumbfounded for 7 minutes on 9/11. Glad that is the kind of leader *they* want because that is what they got!

This is so, so sad.

[Spinzonner]

1. Military training may not be a material issue

Clinton didnt have it either and he was still a competent leader.

he issue with AWOL is his failure to complete his military obligation legally, his continuous lying about it, the coverup operation that was apparently undertaken to conceal the truth, the influence exerted to both get him out of the trouble he was in and then coverup the process.

Its not military service, it's the corruption.

[demgurl]

3. Which makes it all the more clear how he could do everythinghe does today.

But they do not care. How can they not care?

[bowens43]

2. I agree about military experience or lack of it being a non-issue.

I was dismayed and saddened to see the Democratic party making such a big deal about something that happened 30 years ago. IMO it has absolutely nothing to do with Kerry's ability or Bushes inability to be a successful president.

[Trajan]

7. It may not matter to you personally ....

But this issue strikes at the heart of the rhetoric offered by the GOP these last years: Their hypocrisy is palpable and real ...

One cannot go about crowing how strong and martial they are, while at the same time hiding their own military malfeasances and lies about 'honorable' service ....

This isnt necessarily about whether military service better suits a candidate for president, but whether HONESTY and SINCERITY exists within the heart of that candidate ....

Much CAN be made of Kerry's selfless offer to serve in the breech of danger .... and the corresponding SELFISHNESS of Bush and his apparent desire to AVOID serving his nation: and then to lie about that service ... all the while FALSELY accusing Kerry of being 'unpatriotic' and 'weak' ....

Much SHOULD be made of these incongruities ...

Much MUST be made of them ....

It's not about military service, but about personal integrity and character ....

NEVER let up on this ....

[ellie]

4. My DH and I were talking about

this the other day. Repukes are crazy and inconsistent. They say that they don't care what smirky was doing in the 70s, it's all ancient history, right? But they do care what Kerry was doing! I thought it was ancient history? Wrong! They are nuts. I treat these people with as much scorn and derision as I can muster.

[RubyDuby in GA]

5. You hit the nail on the head

That is what drives me absolutely crazy about today's Republicans. The sheer absolute hypocrisy of their thoughts, words and actions never seems to dawn on them. Then, when you call them on their shit, they cry foul.

Idiots.

[Warpy]

6. We're not talking job experience, we're talking character.

That might be an opening salvo. After all, it's an illustration of the difference in character between the two men.

The man who holds the office now was a rich kid who had everything handed to him from the day he was born, including a way to stay out of Vietnam in a guard unit populated by other rich kids dodging Vietnam. He was handed a commission without doing the work in OCS. And he walked away from even minimal commitment to the job. And it was covered up, his records scrubbed. He was and is a coward who never faced up to his responsibilities. He has never been held personally responsible for anything in his life, and will likely never accept responsibility in the future.

His opponent is a rich kid who had a great deal handed to him, but who felt grateful enough to want to give back. He volunteered for the navy, earned his commission, and volunteered for a second term in Vietnam doing more hazardous duty than the first. He earned five medals doing so. All but one of the men who served with him are loyal to him to this day (and there's one in every crowd). His second tour ended early because navy policy required sending men home after the third wound. While there, he became disgusted with the way the war was fount and took the responsibility to tell the world about that.

One man is a rich shirker, the other a man who accepts responsibility for his actions. You decide whether or not how they reacted to the call to serve their country 30 years ago is an illustration of the differences in their characters. We already have.


There ya go.