McCain 08?

McGentrix and Madam, I see Dyslexias list as a challenge to your side...

Dyslexia has thrown down the Guantlet by saying that the Military service of prominent Democrats is far superior to to the Military service of prominent Republicans.

Rather than whine about how the facts Dyslexia are "biased", you could show how Dyslexias facts are biased by presenting the counter examples. If there are equivalent examples of Republican Military service than another list would be easy to construct.

Dyslexia did omit the distinguished service of Senator McCain... but many question whether he is a real Republican so this is understandable.

But the ball is in your court. Dyslexia has listed the factual service record of a great number of prominent Democrats. I honestly would love to know if there is a matching number of prominent Republicans and it is up to someone on your side to show if this is the case.

So, as the saying goes...

Put up or shut up!

Here is a link for vets in the House. Looks like a mix of Democrats and Republicans. I haven't added them up. There should be info. on the Senate somewhere.

http://grunt.space.swri.edu/housevet.htm

Dyslexia needs to delete the Vietnam vets from his list because according to Kerry, they virtually all committed atrocities there.

And of course there isn't any bias in who is chosen to be listed in the list, is there?

Right now, some appear to have invested their loyalty in Gingrich or the ultra-religious Brownback. But neither seems to have much chance of winning the primaries. More realistic souls have therefore shifted their attention to Mitt Romney. But he does have an assertively pro-gay rights record in his political past. So, the question appears to still be open.

Romney Says He's Against Gay 'Marriage'

Here is a link for vets in the House. Looks like a mix of Democrats and Republicans. I haven't added them up. There should be info. on the Senate somewhere.

http://grunt.space.swri.edu/housevet.htm

46 R
42 D

"of course the Democrats have few military heros at the top of their party at this point" <-- "the meaning intended here is anyone that served honorably in our armed forces to defend this country."

It's a cute, but generally pointless list Dys has found on the internet. Is it suppose to signify anything more then some kind of idiotic bias?

In an apparent pitch to the crucial evangelical base of the Republican Party, Governor Mitt Romney says he has been ''at the forefront" of the nation's toughest cultural battles and that his values are ''on the same page" with the Christian right.

What is a hero? That word is tossed around pretty loose & fast, I'd like someone to explain what a hero is.

okie wrote:

Dyslexia needs to delete the Vietnam vets from his list because according to Kerry, they virtually all committed atrocities there.

And of course there isn't any bias in who is chosen to be listed in the list, is there?

Of course my list shows extreme bias and is, essentially, stupid. That was intentional. On the other hand everything on my posted list is factual ergo in comparison to Okie's
"and of course the Democrats have few military heros at the top of their party at this point"
demonstrates unusal rational clairty against Okie's attitude presented as some form of reasoned meaningful clarity.

As far as the "Vietnam vets" issue, to the best of my knowledge there are a number of a2k posters who served in Vietnam quite honorably with about equal numbers from both sides of the political spectrum. That was again another Okie bullshit attitude totally sans meaningful value. Okie you're a bogus non-thinking poster who needs to engage brain before triping on these boards.

The inside-the-Beltway reaction to the details of Romney's record suggests the answer could be yes. Most Washington conservatives have either ignored the report or put a positive spin on it. "I think that this Romney then-vs.-now memo [that's] circulating now, is a bit of a gift to his campaign," a blogger at National Review cheerily wrote, arguing that it's better for such information to appear early in the process. What Massachusetts conservatives like Camenker see as Romney's four years of deal-making and capitulation to the left, Romney has successfully sold to national conservatives as four years of muscular confrontation with the out-of-control liberal government he inherited. The pitch has gone down easy with conservatives because they need an anti-McCain. [..] "We're getting a lot of negative reaction from Republicans," notes Camenker, who says he's been surprised at the hostility. "'Why are you doing this? Why are you attacking Romney? He's better than Giuliani and McCain.'"

For all his success in bringing Romney's pro-gay, pro-abortion record before the most influential conservatives in the United States, when I press him, Camenker admits that it might not matter. [H]e accepts that his natural allies might willfully ignore Romney's liberal tendencies. "I've always accused liberals of going with their emotions, not thinking things through, and generally being stupid and having a very shallow way of looking at the issues," he tells me at the end of our conversation, sounding disappointed. "I'm finding the same thing on our side."

Dyslexia , [..] Does your list include John Kerry, Al Gore, [..] Harry Reid [..]?

My point was that the Democrats know better than to try to smear McCain's military service when this issue is not exactly their strong point. I stand by that.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

What is a hero? That word is tossed around pretty loose & fast, I'd like someone to explain what a hero is.

OK, here´s my take. I personally believe that anyone who survived their war service in the jungle of Vietnam or the battlefields of WW2 and was not driven to Abu G.-type misdeeds is a hero. But by ways of more objective measurement, I look at the medals and honors that were awarded to these military men and women for their acts of bravery.

nimh wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

What is a hero? That word is tossed around pretty loose & fast, I'd like someone to explain what a hero is.

OK, here´s my take. I personally believe that anyone who survived their war service in the jungle of Vietnam or the battlefields of WW2 and was not driven to Abu G.-type misdeeds is a hero. But by ways of more objective measurement, I look at the medals and honors that were awarded to these military men and women for their acts of bravery.

Those medals & honors were given out very sparingly during WWII, not until Vietnam were medals handed out without extensive proof that they were earned. That is so unfair to those that have/did earn them. There's very few GIs that don't have a story about a bogus medal/honor being given to some undeserving fake. I would never venture to guess who did or did not earn them, but the ones that were there know, the ones that received them under false pretenses also know.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

nimh wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

What is a hero? That word is tossed around pretty loose & fast, I'd like someone to explain what a hero is.

OK, here´s my take. I personally believe that anyone who survived their war service in the jungle of Vietnam or the battlefields of WW2 and was not driven to Abu G.-type misdeeds is a hero. But by ways of more objective measurement, I look at the medals and honors that were awarded to these military men and women for their acts of bravery.

Those medals & honors were given out very sparingly during WWII, not until Vietnam were medals handed out without extensive proof that they were earned. That is so unfair to those that have/did earn them. There's very few GIs that don't have a story about a bogus medal/honor being given to some undeserving fake. I would never venture to guess who did or did not earn them, but the ones that were there know, the ones that received them under false pretenses also know.

I don't personally know of anyone who received medals during Vietnam that were bogus but i do know that officers handed them out to each other like candy. So what? Everyone that served, in one way or another, deserved them.