Lets look at history and the sordid collection of democratic soldier wannabes:
Obama, Barack: Never served in any capacity and would have probably not passed a background check. Under his watch the US is losing Iraq and losing people every week in Afghanistan (and Chicago).
Bush, George W.: Served in the Texas Air National Guard. During his time in the guard Bush inquired about an assignment to Vietnam but was turned down as he did not have the prerequisite flight hours to go. His unit's aircraft was later withdrawn from service. He completed his two required service but failed his physical examination leading to his lost flying status in 1973 with nearly 400 hours logged in. He was HONORABLY discharged six months early as where many other guard pilots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...ce_controversy
Clinton, William: Never served in any capacity. As a student wrote letters requesting a deferment in order to enroll in the ROTC program in the following year. He was granted a deferment but his draft number was not called and he never did enroll in ROTC.
Bush, George H.W.: Lt Bush was the youngest pilot in the US Navy when he was assigned to a wartime patrol as the pilot of a torpedo bomber. This type of flying service was very hazardous and pilots did not have a high survival rate. In fact, Lt. Bush was shot down more than once and had to be fished from the ocean by a submarine. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.
Reagan, Ronald: Reagan was commissioned into the Army Reserve in 1937 as a cavalry officer. He was called to active duty in 1942 but was only rated for limited service because of his near sightedness. He requested transfer from the cavalry to the Army Air Force and was accepted. He was assigned to a public relations unit and was promoted to Captain before his discharge.
Carter, James: Graduate of the US Naval Academy, class of 47. Served time on two gunnery training ships before transferring to the submarine service. Qualified to be considered for command when selected by Hyram Rickover to help design nuclear power plants for submarines. Was slated to the be the engineering officer for the USS Triton when his father died. He resigned from the US Navy (that means he quit) and returned home to run for Congress. He reached the rank of Lt.
Ford, Gerald: Commissioned as an ensign in the Naval Reserve in 1942, Ford went through the flying pipeline to end up on the USS Monterey fighting the war in the Pacific. When not flying combat missions Lt. Ford served as a General Quarters Officer of the Deck. Damaged by a typhoon the Monterey experienced a fire in the hanger bay. Lt. Ford was nearly lost over the side carrying out his duties. He was discharged as LCDR Ford.
Nixon, Richard: Commissioned an ensign in the US Naval Reserve in 1942. Nixon went to flight school before being assigned as a command aide. Requesting sea duty Nixon was assigned to logistics operations in the Pacific and served in that capacity over many different commands. Nixon left the navy reserve in 1966 as a Commander.
Johnson, Lyndon: Congressman Johnson was given the rank of LCDR in the US Navy in 1940 and went to active duty in December 1941. He completed one assignment by flying to Australia as a passenger. He left the naval service six months after he entered in time to run in the special election to fill his empty congressional seat.
Kennedy, John: Commissioned an ensign in 1940, Kennedy worked in naval intelligence until he transferred to a torpedo boat squadron. He lost his command in August 1941. The PT 109 was caught unawares by a Japanese ship that literally cut the small wooden boat in two pieces. Kennedy survived but his back injuries lead to more times in the hospital unit his discharge in 1945.
Eisenhower, Dwight: Aid to Colonel Douglas MacArthur during the Bonus Marcher demonstrations. Major Eisenhower was promoted to Brigadier in 1941. During World War II, Eisenhower was promoted to Commanding General of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces) where he commanded the liberation of Europe.
Truman, Harry: Captain Truman served as a battery commander during World War I in a Missouri National Guard unit. He served under fire from his arrival in Europe to Armistice Day.
Roosevelt, Franklin: Never served in a military capacity but was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Josephus Daniels. He drafted the orders that shut down Storyville in New Orleans to protect the sailors for the alure of prostitutes of many colors.
Hoover, Herbert: Never served in any military capacity but did work along side many military units in relief efforts around the world.
Harding, Warren: Never served in any military capacity.
Wilson, Woodrow: Never served in any military capacity. Commanded the United States during World War I. Selected General John Pershing as commanding general of the AEF.
Taft, William: Never served in a military capacity but was Secretary of War under T. Roosevelt and the military governor of Cuba.
Roosevelt, Theodore: Assistant Secretary of the Navy that sent the USS Maine to Cuba prior to the Spanish-American war. LColonel under Colonel Leonard Wood of the First Volunteer Cavalry. Promoted to Colonel when Leonard Wood was promoted out of command to general.
That covers the 20th and 21st century.
- JD Barleycorn
- 07-17-2014, 03:03 AM
- i'va biggen
- 07-17-2014, 05:57 AM
- LexusLover
- 07-17-2014, 06:56 AM
Nope, I joined! Originally Posted by bigtexI was wondering, because you posted something about ...
.."avoiding the Military draft" ....
My first thought was ... what over kind of "draft" could there have been..
... then I thought you might be "considering" the "NFL draft" .... and then ..
... I thought may be you "avoided" the "Military draft" by joining ...
... like Bush did.
But to answer your question to me..... I was not drafted, ....
.... just like you were not "drafted" and Bush was not "drafted," .. but since ..
you have access to my OMPF ... you already know that, don't you?
- Jackie S
- 07-17-2014, 07:24 AM
One of the things that irked me when George H W Bush was President was the Liberal comedy shows depicted him as some sort of sissy or whimp.
The man was a decorated WW2 pilot, shot down, and survived. The people ridiculing him were not even qualified to tie his shoes.
The man was a decorated WW2 pilot, shot down, and survived. The people ridiculing him were not even qualified to tie his shoes.
- Yssup Rider
- 07-17-2014, 07:25 AM
Lets look at history and the sordid collection of democratic soldier wannabes:
Obama, Barack: Never served in any capacity and would have probably not passed a background check. Under his watch the US is losing Iraq and losing people every week in Afghanistan (and Chicago).
Bush, George W.: Served in the Texas Air National Guard. During his time in the guard Bush inquired about an assignment to Vietnam but was turned down as he did not have the prerequisite flight hours to go. His unit's aircraft was later withdrawn from service. He completed his two required service but failed his physical examination leading to his lost flying status in 1973 with nearly 400 hours logged in. He was HONORABLY discharged six months early as where many other guard pilots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...ce_controversy
Clinton, William: Never served in any capacity. As a student wrote letters requesting a deferment in order to enroll in the ROTC program in the following year. He was granted a deferment but his draft number was not called and he never did enroll in ROTC.
Bush, George H.W.: Lt Bush was the youngest pilot in the US Navy when he was assigned to a wartime patrol as the pilot of a torpedo bomber. This type of flying service was very hazardous and pilots did not have a high survival rate. In fact, Lt. Bush was shot down more than once and had to be fished from the ocean by a submarine. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.
Reagan, Ronald: Reagan was commissioned into the Army Reserve in 1937 as a cavalry officer. He was called to active duty in 1942 but was only rated for limited service because of his near sightedness. He requested transfer from the cavalry to the Army Air Force and was accepted. He was assigned to a public relations unit and was promoted to Captain before his discharge.
Carter, James: Graduate of the US Naval Academy, class of 47. Served time on two gunnery training ships before transferring to the submarine service. Qualified to be considered for command when selected by Hyram Rickover to help design nuclear power plants for submarines. Was slated to the be the engineering officer for the USS Triton when his father died. He resigned from the US Navy (that means he quit) and returned home to run for Congress. He reached the rank of Lt.
Ford, Gerald: Commissioned as an ensign in the Naval Reserve in 1942, Ford went through the flying pipeline to end up on the USS Monterey fighting the war in the Pacific. When not flying combat missions Lt. Ford served as a General Quarters Officer of the Deck. Damaged by a typhoon the Monterey experienced a fire in the hanger bay. Lt. Ford was nearly lost over the side carrying out his duties. He was discharged as LCDR Ford.
Nixon, Richard: Commissioned an ensign in the US Naval Reserve in 1942. Nixon went to flight school before being assigned as a command aide. Requesting sea duty Nixon was assigned to logistics operations in the Pacific and served in that capacity over many different commands. Nixon left the navy reserve in 1966 as a Commander.
Johnson, Lyndon: Congressman Johnson was given the rank of LCDR in the US Navy in 1940 and went to active duty in December 1941. He completed one assignment by flying to Australia as a passenger. He left the naval service six months after he entered in time to run in the special election to fill his empty congressional seat.
Kennedy, John: Commissioned an ensign in 1940, Kennedy worked in naval intelligence until he transferred to a torpedo boat squadron. He lost his command in August 1941. The PT 109 was caught unawares by a Japanese ship that literally cut the small wooden boat in two pieces. Kennedy survived but his back injuries lead to more times in the hospital unit his discharge in 1945.
Eisenhower, Dwight: Aid to Colonel Douglas MacArthur during the Bonus Marcher demonstrations. Major Eisenhower was promoted to Brigadier in 1941. During World War II, Eisenhower was promoted to Commanding General of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces) where he commanded the liberation of Europe.
Truman, Harry: Captain Truman served as a battery commander during World War I in a Missouri National Guard unit. He served under fire from his arrival in Europe to Armistice Day.
Roosevelt, Franklin: Never served in a military capacity but was Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Josephus Daniels. He drafted the orders that shut down Storyville in New Orleans to protect the sailors for the alure of prostitutes of many colors.
Hoover, Herbert: Never served in any military capacity but did work along side many military units in relief efforts around the world.
Harding, Warren: Never served in any military capacity.
Wilson, Woodrow: Never served in any military capacity. Commanded the United States during World War I. Selected General John Pershing as commanding general of the AEF.
Taft, William: Never served in a military capacity but was Secretary of War under T. Roosevelt and the military governor of Cuba.
Roosevelt, Theodore: Assistant Secretary of the Navy that sent the USS Maine to Cuba prior to the Spanish-American war. LColonel under Colonel Leonard Wood of the First Volunteer Cavalry. Promoted to Colonel when Leonard Wood was promoted out of command to general.
That covers the 20th and 21st century. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Lets see, are you saying that republicans are better because they love war, destruction, death and the collapse of the world economy?
- LexusLover
- 07-17-2014, 08:27 AM
- cptjohnstone
- 07-17-2014, 09:46 AM
- boardman
- 07-17-2014, 10:09 AM
- Guest040616
- 07-17-2014, 10:14 AM
- I B Hankering
- 07-17-2014, 12:06 PM
One of the things that irked me when George H W Bush was President was the Liberal comedy shows depicted him as some sort of sissy or whimp.+1
The man was a decorated WW2 pilot, shot down, and survived. The people ridiculing him were not even qualified to tie his shoes. Originally Posted by Jackie S
Damn skippy ... Originally Posted by i'va biggenHaving no nuts of his own, Ekim the Inbred Chimp seeks to find some in peanut butter!
IBIdiot strikes again. Now he's talking about men's testicles.You're fortunate that your hands are free to type while you tea-bag your boyfriend's scrotum, you hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.
Your responses are so ... Well ... One-room schoolhouse playground, that I can't believe you would actually believe what an utter dipshit you are.
You've run out of substance. Like you ever had any to begin with.
Game. Set. Match to BT. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
- LexusLover
- 07-17-2014, 12:23 PM
The man was a decorated WW2 pilot, shot down, and survived. The people ridiculing him were not even qualified to tie his shoes. Originally Posted by Jackie S#1: It was enlightening to hear him remembering the experience and how candidate and humble he was when relating his feelings as it unfolded.
#2: "They" did the same to Bob Dole and John McCain.
#3: John Kerry earned his disrespect.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 07-17-2014, 08:07 PM
"America is being run by a blinkered ideologue who ignores issues that fall outside his ideological spectrum."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgr...-ignored-iraq/
Why Obama Ignored Iraq
July 7, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield
ISIS marching through Iraq has smashed the media’s taboo against criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. Substantive discussions are taking place about why his foreign policy is such a miserable failure.
And they mostly miss the point.
Liberal journalists still proceed from the fallacy that there was a foreign policy debate between neo-conservative interventionists and liberal non-interventionists. These are a series of digested Bush era talking points that have no relationship to reality since Bush’s foreign policy on Iraq carried over from Bill Clinton. It’s why Hillary gets so uncomfortable when she has to discuss her vote on Iraq.
The liberals weren’t non-interventionists who insisted on multilateralism and UN approval before acting. Obama, like virtually every other Democrat, disproved that myth as fast as he could. Nor were they even opponents of the Iraq War until opposing the war became politically convenient.
Obama however isn’t on this map at all. It’s not that he is an opponent of intervention. The Libyans can tell you that. It’s that his reasons for intervening fall completely outside the grid of national interests.
The anti-war activist as pacifist is largely a myth. There are a few anti-war activists who oppose all wars, but mostly they just oppose America. Obama, who got his foot up the political ladder by flirting with the anti-war movement, falls into that category. Obama isn’t opposed to wars. He’s opposed to America.
Obama is an ideological interventionist, not a nationalist interventionist. And despite his multilateralist rhetoric, he isn’t your usual globalist either. Instead he uses national and international power as platforms for pursuing ideological goals without any regard to national or international interests.
That is true of both his foreign and domestic policy.
Obama’s foreign policy is issue oriented, just like his domestic policy is. There is no national agenda, only a leftist agenda. America is just a power platform for pursuing policy goals.
Domestically, Obama does not care about fixing the economy. The economy is a vehicle for pursuing social justice, environmental justice and all the many unjust justices of the left. It has no innate value. Likewise national security and power have no value except as tools for promoting leftist policies.
Obama thinks of the ideological issue first. Then he packages it as a national interest for popular consumption. It’s a Wilsonian approach that is not only far more extreme than the policies of most White House occupants have been, but also more detached.
Wilson couldn’t understand that American power couldn’t exist without a national interest. Obama and his staffers see America as just another transnational institution that they happen to be running, not all that different than a corporation, non-profit or UN body. They don’t see it as a country, but a series of policymaking offices that reach across the country and the world.
It’s a globalized mode of thinking that is common among Eurocrats, but has never been represented in the Oval Office before.
Obama doesn’t just oppose America. He disregards it as an outmoded institution. When confronted with the border crisis or the rise of ISIS, he doesn’t see them in terms of American interests or even world interests, but in the narrow terms of leftist ideology.
He will use national and international institutions to promote LGBT rights or Green Energy. He won’t however get involved in actively using them for national security unless he absolutely has to in order to protect his own political power.
To a transnational mindset, institutions exist to promote issues. America is only of value to the extent that it can promote the left’s agenda. To the extent that it doesn’t, America is dead weight.
Once Bush was out, Iraq ceased to matter because it was no longer a packaged issue. It couldn’t be broken down into a simplistic Blame Bush policy agenda. And so Obama stopped paying attention.
Now Iraq is getting in the way of the things that he really cares about, such as illegal alien amnesty, dismantling Israel and transsexual bathrooms, because these are ideologically meaningful issues to him. And like every other obstacle, whether it was the national debt or the VA scandal, he pretends to take them seriously until a sufficient amount of time passes and he can dismiss them as “phony scandals”.
Obama didn’t just ignore Iraq because he wanted to avoid any connections to a war that he had helped make unpopular. He ignored Iraq because it had nothing to offer his ideology. If Iraq had a secular dictator, he might have been interested. If Islamists were fighting to take over from that dictator, there would have been planes and diplomats flying over Baghdad before you could shout, “Allah Akbar.”
It’s why he backed the Islamist overthrow of Arab governments, but not the popular protests against Islamist governments in Iran or Turkey.
But Iraq was a battle between Sunni and Shiite Islamists, backed by the Saudis and Iran. Even the left has trouble picking a side between two anti-American Islamic factions who are divided over theological issues, instead of practical things like dialectical materialism and the discourse of othering. In a pinch they pick the Iranian side as being more anti-American, but the prospect of American intervention on the same side as the Shiites confuses them even further and they have to go lie down in a dark room.
When there is no clear ideological guide, Obama takes meetings with generals, tunes them out, plays with his phone and delays doing something for as long as possible. That was the pattern in Afghanistan and Syria. Ideologues can’t function without an ideological orientation. When the ideological value of a problem is unclear, Obama either freezes up, like a robot whose manual was misplaced, or ignores it.
Obama’s only approach to Iraq came from Bush era opposition. Without Bush to push against, he had no idea what if anything should be done about Iraq. He still doesn’t. Instead he resorts to the antiquated attacks on Bush because it’s the last time that Iraq made any sense to him. It was the last time that the left had successfully packaged Iraq into a simple scenario in which there was only one right choice.
Ideologues are not big on independent thinking. When everything is politicized, they lose the ability to see the things that can’t be neatly assigned to one side or another. America is being run by a blinkered ideologue who ignores issues that fall outside his ideological spectrum.
Those problems that he doesn’t cause directly and intentionally through his ideology, he causes indirectly and unintentionally by being unable to operate outside his ideology except in an emergency. Like the difference between the pilot who flies a plane deliberately into a mountain and the one who accidentally flies it into a mountain, there is a gap in motivation, but not in outcome.
History will not record why Obama screwed everything up. It will only record that he did it.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgr...-ignored-iraq/
Why Obama Ignored Iraq
July 7, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield
ISIS marching through Iraq has smashed the media’s taboo against criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. Substantive discussions are taking place about why his foreign policy is such a miserable failure.
And they mostly miss the point.
Liberal journalists still proceed from the fallacy that there was a foreign policy debate between neo-conservative interventionists and liberal non-interventionists. These are a series of digested Bush era talking points that have no relationship to reality since Bush’s foreign policy on Iraq carried over from Bill Clinton. It’s why Hillary gets so uncomfortable when she has to discuss her vote on Iraq.
The liberals weren’t non-interventionists who insisted on multilateralism and UN approval before acting. Obama, like virtually every other Democrat, disproved that myth as fast as he could. Nor were they even opponents of the Iraq War until opposing the war became politically convenient.
Obama however isn’t on this map at all. It’s not that he is an opponent of intervention. The Libyans can tell you that. It’s that his reasons for intervening fall completely outside the grid of national interests.
The anti-war activist as pacifist is largely a myth. There are a few anti-war activists who oppose all wars, but mostly they just oppose America. Obama, who got his foot up the political ladder by flirting with the anti-war movement, falls into that category. Obama isn’t opposed to wars. He’s opposed to America.
Obama is an ideological interventionist, not a nationalist interventionist. And despite his multilateralist rhetoric, he isn’t your usual globalist either. Instead he uses national and international power as platforms for pursuing ideological goals without any regard to national or international interests.
That is true of both his foreign and domestic policy.
Obama’s foreign policy is issue oriented, just like his domestic policy is. There is no national agenda, only a leftist agenda. America is just a power platform for pursuing policy goals.
Domestically, Obama does not care about fixing the economy. The economy is a vehicle for pursuing social justice, environmental justice and all the many unjust justices of the left. It has no innate value. Likewise national security and power have no value except as tools for promoting leftist policies.
Obama thinks of the ideological issue first. Then he packages it as a national interest for popular consumption. It’s a Wilsonian approach that is not only far more extreme than the policies of most White House occupants have been, but also more detached.
Wilson couldn’t understand that American power couldn’t exist without a national interest. Obama and his staffers see America as just another transnational institution that they happen to be running, not all that different than a corporation, non-profit or UN body. They don’t see it as a country, but a series of policymaking offices that reach across the country and the world.
It’s a globalized mode of thinking that is common among Eurocrats, but has never been represented in the Oval Office before.
Obama doesn’t just oppose America. He disregards it as an outmoded institution. When confronted with the border crisis or the rise of ISIS, he doesn’t see them in terms of American interests or even world interests, but in the narrow terms of leftist ideology.
He will use national and international institutions to promote LGBT rights or Green Energy. He won’t however get involved in actively using them for national security unless he absolutely has to in order to protect his own political power.
To a transnational mindset, institutions exist to promote issues. America is only of value to the extent that it can promote the left’s agenda. To the extent that it doesn’t, America is dead weight.
Once Bush was out, Iraq ceased to matter because it was no longer a packaged issue. It couldn’t be broken down into a simplistic Blame Bush policy agenda. And so Obama stopped paying attention.
Now Iraq is getting in the way of the things that he really cares about, such as illegal alien amnesty, dismantling Israel and transsexual bathrooms, because these are ideologically meaningful issues to him. And like every other obstacle, whether it was the national debt or the VA scandal, he pretends to take them seriously until a sufficient amount of time passes and he can dismiss them as “phony scandals”.
Obama didn’t just ignore Iraq because he wanted to avoid any connections to a war that he had helped make unpopular. He ignored Iraq because it had nothing to offer his ideology. If Iraq had a secular dictator, he might have been interested. If Islamists were fighting to take over from that dictator, there would have been planes and diplomats flying over Baghdad before you could shout, “Allah Akbar.”
It’s why he backed the Islamist overthrow of Arab governments, but not the popular protests against Islamist governments in Iran or Turkey.
But Iraq was a battle between Sunni and Shiite Islamists, backed by the Saudis and Iran. Even the left has trouble picking a side between two anti-American Islamic factions who are divided over theological issues, instead of practical things like dialectical materialism and the discourse of othering. In a pinch they pick the Iranian side as being more anti-American, but the prospect of American intervention on the same side as the Shiites confuses them even further and they have to go lie down in a dark room.
When there is no clear ideological guide, Obama takes meetings with generals, tunes them out, plays with his phone and delays doing something for as long as possible. That was the pattern in Afghanistan and Syria. Ideologues can’t function without an ideological orientation. When the ideological value of a problem is unclear, Obama either freezes up, like a robot whose manual was misplaced, or ignores it.
Obama’s only approach to Iraq came from Bush era opposition. Without Bush to push against, he had no idea what if anything should be done about Iraq. He still doesn’t. Instead he resorts to the antiquated attacks on Bush because it’s the last time that Iraq made any sense to him. It was the last time that the left had successfully packaged Iraq into a simple scenario in which there was only one right choice.
Ideologues are not big on independent thinking. When everything is politicized, they lose the ability to see the things that can’t be neatly assigned to one side or another. America is being run by a blinkered ideologue who ignores issues that fall outside his ideological spectrum.
Those problems that he doesn’t cause directly and intentionally through his ideology, he causes indirectly and unintentionally by being unable to operate outside his ideology except in an emergency. Like the difference between the pilot who flies a plane deliberately into a mountain and the one who accidentally flies it into a mountain, there is a gap in motivation, but not in outcome.
History will not record why Obama screwed everything up. It will only record that he did it.
- Yssup Rider
- 07-17-2014, 10:22 PM
+1The ORIGINAL Dipshit of the Year!
Having no nuts of his own, Ekim the Inbred Chimp seeks to find some in peanut butter!
You're fortunate that your hands are free to type while you tea-bag your boyfriend's scrotum, you hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
- LexusLover
- 07-18-2014, 04:11 AM
[FONT="Arial Black"][SIZE="4"]Part of her "credentials" are her "experiences" of being close to the "Hard Choices" being made in the White House, similarly to Al Gore's proximity, and Bill Clinton will verbally express the same at the appropriate time frame in the election process to give her a "boost" by using his self-perceived popularity to catapult her into the White House.
It’s why Hillary gets so uncomfortable when she has to discuss her vote on Iraq. Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB
What Bill cannot overcome is his own failures and hers, which have been well documented now, and were being in the ramp up to the 2000 elections with Gore, and her out right lies and ridiculous statements such as her "military" experience of dodging sniper fire on the tarmac in Europe and the "Great Right Wing Conspiracy" accusing Bill of getting blow jobs in the White House. Running around the World for photo ops with that big fake smile is not being a diplomat. It's making campaign posters and clips for ads. She can wear Benghazi, it's hers, since it not only happened on her watch, she admitted it was her fault.
She's no more qualified for the job than Obaminable was (or is) qualified.
And the last thing this country needs is another 4 years with a liar at the helm. Plus we don't need a symbolic gesture to advance a gender agenda. If you just want a "female" to be President, promote Minnie Mouse. She's more qualified.
- Jewish Lawyer
- 07-22-2014, 09:59 AM
One of the things that irked me when George H W Bush was President was the Liberal comedy shows depicted him as some sort of sissy or whimp.Imagine the thoughts in your mind when you are swimming in the ocean in wartime. Mommy ain't there to save you.
The man was a decorated WW2 pilot, shot down, and survived. The people ridiculing him were not even qualified to tie his shoes. Originally Posted by Jackie S