Christopher
Active Member
- Aug 7, 2009
- 569
- 75
- 28
- Thread starter
- #101
Romney's actual quote:
"The good news is, we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it. My sons are adults. They've chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. ... And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."
When you choose one of two actions, do you choose the "LEAST" important? Or the "MOST" important.
All 5 sons are of military age. Romney and all five sons support sending Americans off to die in Iraq. But their choice wasn't in helping those other Americans, but rather, in helping Romney get elected. So that was the "least" important thing they could do? Lucky he didn't win. Wouldn't you say?
Are you really serious? This is your beef with Romney? That he didnt force his sons to join the armed forces? If I knew someone that forced such a thing on their sons, I would say that person is doing the wrong thing. He let them make their own decision and what was the most important to them.
Using your logic, we should assume that all politicians who were/are against the war should force their children to join the Peace Corp.
Hatred, resentment, bigotry, or whatever else it is that is fueling your response here has seriously clouded your logic.
Romney was asked if he supported the Iraqi war and he said he did.
Romney was asked if his sons, all of military age, would go to Iraq to fight in a war he supports?
His answer, "my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected".
It just shows where their priorities are. He supports the Iraq war and so do his sons, just not enough to go there and fight. Seems pretty clear to me.
Would you force your sons to go to war if you supported the war?