Not a lie about Reagan, see my prior post just now. I meant to say FOUGHT in the military. My apologies for being unclear.
But let’s use a different example, like Ted Cruz and tell me you if will use his lack of military service as a litmus test. That’s just wrong. Ted Cruz hasn’t SERVED or FOUGHT in the military, but he’d be a good president.
As for the number of choices in the election, you’re picking on semantics. We all know the unfortunate nature of the primary process and the brainwashed electorate only gave us a choice of two candidates that would win. One was 100% evil and the other a RINO for the most part except his foreign policy and economic policy. You chose the 100% evil candidate by not voting.
Other votes for candidate with a 2% showing in the polls are throwaway votes that could have been used to prevent a truly EVIL candidate from winning.
No it was not unclear. It was a lie. What does fighting have to do with serving? Most who serve never fight.
Backpedal fail.
"Instead you resort to a weak ad-hom on the candidate Romney’s lack of military service as if that negates his strong foreign policy stance. Just like liberals do (ad-homs when they have no argument)."
"Might I remind you that my friend Ronald Reagan ALSO DIDN’T SERVE IN THE MILITARY either (I visited him in his office once)."
"Are you also going to criticize the venerable Ronald Reagan for his lack of military service?"
