SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: brushwud who wrote (201093)9/12/2012 2:28:21 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542008
 
"But if anyone thinks Romney was a draft dodger and Clinton wasn't, that's pure hypocrisy."

Seriously, who gives a shit? Clinton isn't running for anything right now. Romney, as part of the jinogistic republican party is more vulnerable on military stuff than any democrat. When you have an uber hawkish party, you may be judged a little differently. That's just the way it is. It's like when republicans are caught in bathrooms tapping other guys' shoes for anonymous sex. No one really cares about the anonymous sex- or at least people like me don't. I don't give a crap if the whole senate likes to hang out in the bathroom for blowjobs between breaks in senate testimony. What does matter is when someone wants to limit the behavior of gay folks by using the machinery of the state, but in private they are soliciting gays in restrooms. That's the same problem Romney has. The republican party always wants to pretend it's the party that supports the military- but then it puts up all these chickenshit cowards. That's a problem.



To: brushwud who wrote (201093)9/14/2012 2:25:17 AM
From: Cogito  Respond to of 542008
 
If anyone supports Obama because they think Romney was a dog abuser or a high school bully, that's fine with me. But if anyone thinks Romney was a draft dodger and Clinton wasn't, that's pure hypocrisy.
I'm not sure I understand how Clinton got into the discussion in the first place.



To: brushwud who wrote (201093)9/14/2012 11:34:14 AM
From: bentway  Respond to of 542008
 
Do you think that Clinton was against the war, protested against it, and that Romney was FOR the war, and counter-protested FOR it, means anything? Romney could have served in the war he was FOR, but like Dick Cheney, apparently had "other priorities" and let other young men die.