Romney's Lack of Military Service Faces Scrutiny [AP Double-Standards and Amnesia ]

Military.com ^ | June 5, 2012 | Steve Peoples, AP

[ansel12]

Read your posts on this thread, it is defending his refusal to serve that you are most obsessed with and I don’t think it is really about him, look at your flurry of initial posts defending not serving, defending it means something to you, this thread shows that.

[Tublecane]

“Read your posts on this thread, it is defending his refusal to serve that you are most obsessed with”

No, I started out merely celebrating the fact that unless we institute another draft in the near future we’re not going to have any more draft-era presidential candadites, and thus can stop parsing what counts as dodging and what as service. I only got around to Romney specifically in my sixth or so post, after attacking the draft and asserting the general principle that military service is not necessary to be elected president.

“look at your flurry of initial posts defending not serving, defending it means something to you, this thread shows that.”

I don’t think so. There may have been a “flurry,” as you say, but I was particularly bad at expressing myself yesterday. This is amply evidenced by my inability to get across my point about McCain versus Obama.

What really means something to me is repudiating the implication that every abvle man must serve in the military if he is to be a real American, or whatever. This involves defending not serving, obviously. But I didn’t bring it up. And to say that I’m obsessed or whatever with defending not serving would be like saying I’m obsessed with the sun rising in the east if someone, unprompted by me, suddenly started arguing the sun rises in the west.

[ansel12]

Not every man can serve, but every patriotic, conservative man should desire to serve, it is just another measure of conservatism and patriotism.

You seem to be somewhat hostile to the idea.

The Romney line is clearly anti-military, they clearly have a non-serving agenda.