Unless of course he is “Supremacy Claus” and his plagiarizing his own material – something I doubt very much, as the writing abilities far, far exceed r2b’s efforts.

I stated that Rudy’s JOB which was classified by the Selective Service as an essential service, so all your research about the difference between one college degree and another is irrelevant.

For the record, I grew up during the Vietnam era and my brother served in Vietnam so if you think that you have acquired some first hand experience by living through that period of history which gives you an upper hand over me in that regard, you are mistaken.

By the way, it is customary to provide links to your sources. Your command of the English language has a way of miraculously improving from illiteracy to fluency from one post to the next, such as when you say this:

To the law schools, this was just a matter of nomenclature, but to the Selective Service it was a matter of substance. J.D. candidates got deferments; LL.B. candidates did not.

I suspect that you did not write that as it far exceeds your abilities.

To the law schools, this was just a matter of nomenclature, but to the Selective Service it was a matter of substance. J.D. candidates got deferments; LL.B. candidates did not.

No amount of reasoning or argumentation, even by Harvard lawyers, would change the Selective Service policy. Therefore, Harvard (and a wave of other schools) converted their programs to J.D. programs (without any change in requirements or curriculum, of course), and the Selective Service was satisfied. Henceforth, students at Harvard Law School were in a doctoral program and could obtain graduate school deferments.

Gee, I guess everything is revisionist history. This I never new, always wondered why attorneys were considered Doctors of Jurisprudence.

MB4 on September 26, 2007 at 2:32 AM

You are apparently old enough to remember this game. You apply to a college, major in history, political science, philosophy were three good ones. Made sure that all of your classes were after noon.
Go to the class, sign the paper on the door, meet the prof. at the afternoon protest. Write a paper describing the protest and pass (in a pass/fail program) or get an A or B in the class. Extra credit if you have a brick in your hand at the protest.

The professor writes a letter to the selective board stating what a great student you were and ask for a deferment.

Or work for a judge and you were almost automically given a deferment. Clerking for a judge was the best, being a TA for a professor almost as good. Being involved in the SDS would have been golden.

They had pamphlets and articles on the best schools to attend, where you did not have to attend classes. San Fransisco State (College then) usually led the pack.

http://www.econ.ubc.ca/lemieux/papers/unintended.pdf

This is a article from Berkely describing what some say did not exist.

You hijacked this thread by making up words that I never said or printed.

em>right2bright on September 26, 2007 at 9:34 AM

I quoted you directly – every single time. Either you are a pathological liar or you suffer from Alzheimer’s or another form of dementia.

Would you like me to give you the contact information for moveon.org?

Are the “chidren” working for him? And are they on the payroll? Something that Fred was charged with, good for the goose is good for the gander.

And why would he try to “persuade” his children not to campaign for him? Why not just say it was an honor, it not like they are going to make any finacial sacrifice, he has got that covered.

Mitt has to move away from this “our family is fighting the good fight”, and realize that other families are making a much greater sacrifice then his family. He has to learn that people do not trust “stepford” lives. So far he never shows any flaws, though his history is rift with them.

That is why Rudy is beating the pants off of him, we see Rudy’s flaws. Humans make mistakes, we see Fred’s flaws, and accept them. That is why Mitt is struggling, he won’t let people into his life, realize he has made some bad choices, bad decisions, hurt people, abused companies while making a buck, was priviledged to have a powerful father support him. That is why Kennedy is so popular, he never dodged the question of his “royalty”, he was proud and built on it.
If he (Mitt) was so perfect, why is he barely double digits? Because people are a lot smarter than he gives them credit for. He doesn’t connect.
He will have an epithany, but it will be too late…and we will have lost the potential of a good leader because he is afraid to “lay it on the line”. And leaders, real leaders, lay it out…the good and the bad.
This ad hits where it hurts most, golfing, fireflies, riding in an RV, living a good life…some service to the country.

Buy Danish on September 26, 2007 at 8:57 AM

Thanks for admitting you misstated what I said.
This was a thread about the five brothers banding together to help America…by campaigning for their dad. It is about a video ad. You hijacked this thread by making up words that I never said or printed.
You are way over obsessed with what I write.

“Per their dad”, means that dad said it, get over it.
Up to 7:51 I never mentioned Mitt and draft dodging, you did. Get over it.
Get over it, move on…you are sick with restating what I say and adding words.
In other words you are a pest that is obsessed with what I write.
You love Mitt, I think Mitt is not all that he is or could be. Sorry that your feelings are hurt.

But please, find someone else to harrass, and quit hijacking these threads. You are taking this stuff way to personal…it is not healthy.

..most would not have considered Romney to be a draft dodger, about half would have considered Cheney to be one, but basically all would have considered Guiliania to be one.

MB4 on September 26, 2007 at 2:32 AM

That may be the “perception” but that too is incorrect. Guiliani received a student deferment initially and then received a second deferment when he became a law clerk because that occupation was considered an essential service by the Selective Service.

Quite frankly, I’m really sick of this nasty game of impugning the character of people who received deferments or served in the Navy, Coast Guard, or National Guard. These people are not “Draft Dodgers” and every single one of the people under discussion, whether it be Romney, Cheney, or Guiliani are patriots who have served this country honorably as civilians.

History begins with every new post for right2bright!

Where in this post about Romney being a draft dodger

Now where did I mention Mitt was a draft dodger on this thread?

right2bright on September 26, 2007 at 1:12 AM

not2bright has repeatedly asserted that Mitt was dodging the draft on previous threads but doesn’t think it’s fair to bring up the past and claimed that it’s against some imaginary rule.

Now, lo and behold, he begins the day by saying:

…well, I place him on the side of dodging,
right2bright on September 26, 2007 at 7:51 AM

Unfreaking believable.

Compare the Romneys to the Hunters. No contest.

MB4 on September 26, 2007 at 2:32 AM

At the time in the 60’s+ you are probably accurate. Maybe knowing a little more now about how the Mormon church met with the Selective Service and brokered a deal, and only selected men were chosen for missions, and the fact the Mitt just happened to be chosen to go to France, and given his conflicting statements about going or not going to war…well, I place him on the side of dodging, mission was a better cover than the academic deferments, but he still took the easy way out. Doesn’t make him evil, or anti American, or the level of Clinton, but moves him into the “I don’t have to go (by my choice), you go in my place” category.

Sacrifice! Courage! Honor! Fore!

Heh.

Buy Danish on September 26, 2007 at 12:45 AM

Thinking back to that time, and looking at it from the perspective of the guys, most of whom were or would be in some branch of the military, that I knew at the time, most would not have considered Romney to be a draft dodger, about half would have considered Cheney to be one, but basically all would have considered Guliania to be one.

Spirit of 1776 on September 25, 2007 at 9:51 PM

What csdeven said at 6:44 pm has been modified a bit from what he said earlier and is thus more reasonable, although his allegation that Mitt wants to “avoid the reality of life for a military family” is a new assertion based on nothing but his own emotions.

Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Thanks for the analysis. Here’s what I’ll do, when I want to comment of something that been said, I quote the parts that I agree with and write “I agree” under them. ;)

To the meat of your comment: yes, Bill Clinton is a superb politician because he generates the sense that he ‘understands’ and ‘cares’ for you the voter.

Now there are 4 possibilities:
1- He does care and he shows
2- He does care and he doesn’t show it
3- He doesn’t care and he doesn’t show it
4- He doesn’t care and he fakes it

So again, I agree with CS’s statement. Mitt should avoid these statements because they do not reflect #1 and flirt dangerously with the appearance of #3 or #4.

Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 11:18 PM

The ability for a CinC to understand the realities of life in a family who has a loved one in harms way is important to those families. I trust Bush and I don’t trust Hillary. I want to trust Mitt, but he has said some stuff that is basically revealed as opportunities for photos or sound bites. I would much rather he get to know the actual emotions that our military families experience so he could speak to us with compassion and knowledge. He could easily do so by taking the time to meet with families. Spend a day or two on the eve of a deployment. Get a feel for it. I would not want it to change his course of action, but I would expect he would have a keener sense of what our guys and gals sacrifice. And that keener sense would come out in his speeches and I dare say he wouldn’t say another thing concerning the military that he would have to apologize for.

…Romney were not Draft Dodgers and your constant assertion that they…
Buy Danish on September 26, 2007 at 12:45 AM

Please, if you do not understand what I write, do not comment. I have asked you this before. You have a comprehension problem.
Where in this post about Romney being a draft dodger. What I said was:

and comparing themselves (per their dad) to military service

You mis-interpreted it, and now you are embarrassed and are making things up. Where did I mention Romney as a draft dodger in my posts on this thread?

Show me and I will apologize…or you can apologize to me for making things up.

You don’t think Cheney manipulated the system, I do…it is not a case of lying or truth, it is believing what you want to believe, don’t take it so personal. I am glad you don’t think Cheney is a draft dodger, I happen to think his 5 deferments where a dodge, just a difference in opinion.

Now where did I mention Mitt was a draft dodger on this thread?

There are so many falsehoods and fallacies in that statement that I cannot begin to address them. Suffice it to say that you consistently make up your own version of reality, and distort what was said so it is no longer recognizable.

Cheney and Romney were not Draft Dodgers and your constant assertion that they and others who received similar deferments met the definition of a Draft Dodger clearly illustrates that you don’t know what the phrase means.

I have repeatedly pointed out to you that a deferment is not an exemption, but you are too filled with a sense of rage to grasp that distinction.

Furthermore, according to what I infer is your “no deferment” policy, we would have had very few doctors, engineers, scientists, scholars, or the like during the Vietnam War since they all would have been drafted into the military. Any clearheaded person should be able to realize that that would have had disastrous consequences.

The fact is that there are many honorable, worthy and necessary pursuits and it does not serve this country well to pit one group against the other.

That being said, I have nothing but profound admiration and respect for anyone who chooses a military career, and I am immeasurably grateful to parents like csdeven who instill such outstanding character traits in their children that they voluntarily put their lives on the line to serve our country.

What csdeven said at 6:44 pm has been modified a bit from what he said earlier and is thus more reasonable, although his allegation that Mitt wants to “avoid the reality of life for a military family” is a new assertion based on nothing but his own emotions.

Think about it. What evidence is there that Mitt would purposefully avoid this sort of contact? None?

From reading the comments of csdeven and right2bright, I am beginning to understand why someone like Bill Clinton is such a successful politician. It’s that “I feel your pain” thing.

You think it’s wise for Mitt to avoid the reality of life for a military family? My point is that he says stupid crap and a little bit of experience would go a long way to helping him avoid those kind of remarks. Remarks I might add that he had to apologize for. It would make him a better candidate and eventual president.

csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 6:44 PM

I agree.

r2b, you said it so beautifully, for me too, and I cried. Thanks for these thoughs.

csdeven, big hug – you are our betters and you sacrifice for all of us.

csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Hey, don’t get soft on me. It means I respect you, not agree with you…

And the respect for your family and your son in particular is genuine. I know this means something to you; a day does not go by without devout prayer for our service men, whether overseas, or at home. They are the ultimate defender of our freedoms, prepared to give the ultimate sacrifice.
Funny, I don’t ever remember saying a prayer for our Congressmen…guess I just don’t feel most of them would sacrifice anything for me…although they would be more than happy to sacrifice anything I have to give for them.

And remember the thousands each day that die, that were in WWII, everyday those great heroes are losing their brothers.

Buy Danish on September 25, 2007 at 8:01 PM

Your saying that deferments were not used to get out of going to Vietnam? Thinking that is revisionist history. The ones who couldn’t get deferments,went to Canada…but then you probably believe that is just a fable.

You don’t think 5 education deferments were out of the ordinary? Clinton had two (I think two, one for Georgetown and the other for Oxford), but he used his to set up demostrations against the war, overseas…much worse.

I have a dozen names of friends that used that ploy to get out of service. Had one catholic friend marry his sweetheart in civil service and told no one but the Selective Service. He married her in a Catholic church 4 years later to make it right in the eyes of God. But that is revisionist history, revisited.

Cheney’s 5 was highly unusual, but at the same time used by most everyone to get out of the draft. Until they stopped that, then you had to be married…and he Cheney did that, then you had to have a child, and Cheney did that…

But then, you don’t beleive people manipulated the rules to get out of serving…ok, believe that fantasy…

You think it’s wise for Mitt to avoid the reality of life for a military family?

csdeven on September 25, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Gosh, now you’re making him out to be a kind of draft dodger like not2bright.

You are not just suggesting that he spend time with military families, you are insisting that he (and others) do so. When you do that you also presume to know what he has done and who he has met with privately, which you have no way of knowing anyway.

right2bright,

I don’t have time to deal with your fantasy world of revisionist history right now, but let’s just say that for starters Cheney was hardly “priviledged” (SIC) so that kinda blows that theory of how deferments were obtained right out of the water.