Originally posted by subz
True, his children are free agents with their own free will but at the very least he should account for reason why his kids don't feel the need to go to battle when their father thinks the war is worth fighting.

Hang on a minute the above statement is to contradictory to make any sense to me. However I wouldn't connect patriotism with kids supporting there parents political career.

Originally posted by grover

Per usual it is the poor who bleed and die while the wealthy and self important serve as cheer leaders.

This statement is untrue, the demographics of this war and the Vietnam war, which this lie is often told about, reveal a heavy involvement by the middle class and those even better off. However, as long as we have an all voluntary force, the only valid question is to ask those who question those who haven't served, "Where and when did you serve?"

Originally posted by xpert11
Hang on a minute the above statement is to contradictory to make any sense to me. However I wouldn't connect patriotism with kids supporting there parents political career.

I'm not justifying Romney's logic, but involement in the political process is highly patriotic, unless of course, one's politics reject patriotism.

Originally posted by xpert11
Hang on a minute the above statement is to contradictory to make any sense to me. However I wouldn't connect patriotism with kids supporting there parents political career.

What was contradictory about it?

I said his sons can do what they like but their father should tell the nation why even his own sons don't think the War on Terror is worth fighting and dying over. If the War on Terror is some kind of clash of civilizations that's crucial to the security of the United States then why do the Romney children not want to fight in it?

He should explain why his kids have a different attitude to the War on Terror than he does. Equating helping him get elected to serving in a war zone is disrespectful to those men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also highly arrogant to equate the two in importance and patriotism.

This goes for all politicians who support the War on Terror as something vital to the security of the United States who have children who are not prepared to share their parents fervour for war. They can do as they choose but their parents should be asked why not even their own children share their view if the War on Terror is this really important and pivotal conflict.

If a politicians kids didn't serve in WW2 when things really were hinging on thread and their was an actual threat to the United States and the World as a whole do you think they'd get a free pass if their able-bodied sons shirked their duty to defend their nation? Do you think a WW2 era politician would of got away with saying "My son doesn't need to fight in the Pacific because he's handing out pins and flyers for my re-election, it's just as patriotic and important as fighting the Japanese".

If he thinks this way then the War on Terror is really not important after all. Which is my view on the matter too. I wouldn't send any son of mine off to fight in this sham of a conflict. But then again I wouldn't prance around on the public stage claiming how important it is at the same time.

Subz you said that Romney kids are free agents and then you said that there father should speak on there behalf as to why they are not serving in the US military. Parents don't have to answer for the actions of there adult kids. Romney should answer questions on how is kids supporting him can be linked to patriotism if that is a notion he is supporting.

As I said I don't disagree with you on the issue of patriotism in this thread.

Originally posted by xpert11
Subz you said that Romney kids are free agents and then you said that there father should speak on there behalf as to why they are not serving in the US military. Parents don't have to answer for the actions of there adult kids. Romney should answer questions on how is kids supporting him can be linked to patriotism if that is a notion he is supporting.

There is nothing contradictory in what I said. He, as a representative who supports the war, can ask his sons "Why don't you want to fight in Iraq and the War on Terror?" and then relay that answer to the people who he is trying to convince the war IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR.

There is an incongruence on Romney's doorstep and he should explain (through relaying the independent reasoning of his sons) to the American people. Asking Romney why his sons don't feel the need to put their lives on the line, and how he himself feels about their own decision, is not contradictory to the sons having their own free will.

[edit on 9/8/07 by subz]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by grover

Per usual it is the poor who bleed and die while the wealthy and self important serve as cheer leaders.

This statement is untrue, the demographics of this war and the Vietnam war, which this lie is often told about, reveal a heavy involvement by the middle class and those even better off. However, as long as we have an all voluntary force, the only valid question is to ask those who question those who haven't served, "Where and when did you serve?"

I served in the United States Coast Guard from 1974 through 1977 and served honorably thank you very much and have a throughly messed up knee because of it as well for which I get a disability and am waiting for a replacement.