Romney was brave to go to France, avoiding the draft. (CNN)

joseph brand

“In 1968, France was a dangerous place to be for a 21-year-old American, but Mitt Romney was right in the middle of it. - Gloria Borger of CNN, in their "documentary," "Romney Revealed."

Link here.

Oh come on. Are they serious? This reminds me of a song from 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'.

Minstrel: [singing] Brave Sir Robin ran away...
Sir Robin: *No!*
Minstrel: [singing] bravely ran away away...
Sir Robin: *I didn't!*
Minstrel: [singing] When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Sir Robin: *I never did!*
Minstrel: [singing] Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out.
Sir Robin: *Oh, you liars!*
Minstrel: [singing] Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.

Sam Seder shows Mitt some sympathy.

Isn't this 'documentary' a little bit disrespectful to the war veterans who served in Vietnam? There is absolutely no way anyone could compare Vietnam to Paris, in 1968.

At least Romney was able to disrespect a Vietnam vet in person.

I'm trying to see some good in Romney, but it's hard.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

one nice thing is he didn't murder any innocent vietnamese

karma_

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

one nice thing is he didn't murder any innocent vietnamese

That would be noble save for the fact he's running now for the highest office in the land and may be the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces.

RobbingBandit

At least he got to dream in a bed of being President, unlike McCain and his bamboo jail cell.

joseph brand

RobbingBandit wrote: »

At least he got to dream in a bed of being President, unlike McCain and his bamboo jail cell.

Is this an attempt at trolling? It makes no sense.

So what if he dodged the draft?
What relevance does this have to his political policies?
We all know the president is only Commander in Chief in name.

Corkfeen

Deleted User wrote: »

So what if he dodged the draft?
What relevance does this have to his political policies?
We all know the president is only Commander in Chief in name.

It's not the fact that he dodged which I don't personally mind. But the fact that they stated France was a dangerous place for an American in 1968 while the other 21 years olds were fighting in Vietnam, it wasn't 'brave' of him to be in France. Probably just crap documentary making more than anything.

Conas

Deleted User wrote: »

So what if he dodged the draft?
What relevance does this have to his political policies?
We all know the president is only Commander in Chief in name.

It's very important with regards to foreign poilcy. At the Republican convention he was making threats to Cuba, Iran, Russia. He's a chicken-hawk like Dick Cheney. He'll be clueless with regards to controlling the armed forces. He ran and hid when thousands of others were sent to their deaths in Vietnam. He'll do what he's told as commander in chief like Bush anyway. That's a dangerous path to be taking all over again. It has massive relevance, and if not approached with caution it could have serious consequences.

Conas

Corkfeen wrote: »

It's not the fact that he dodged which I don't personally mind. But the fact that they stated France was a dangerous place for an American in 1968 while the other 21 years olds were fighting in Vietnam, it wasn't 'brave' of him to be in France. Probably just crap documentary making more than anything.

What are you on about? France wasn't dangerous. Romney spent his time in France with Mormon Missionaries, cycling his bike around the countryside.

Corkfeen

Conas wrote: »

What are you on about? France wasn't dangerous. Romney spent his time in France with Mormon Missionaries, cycling his bike around the countryside.

Erm, I never said it was. I don't think he was in any danger what so ever. Think you should refer to OP.:pac:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mjollnir

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The only fly in that dreamy little ointment is that Romney was for the war in VN and protested FOR it, all the while actively avoiding any involvement in it.

It's called 'hypocrisy' and 'cowardice'.

Einhard

Personally, I think it was brave of Romney to look back on his earlier incarnation and realise that, actually, his more youthful self had been wrong about practically every single issue of substance, and then not only change his mind (often several times!), but admit it so publicly and vociferously. That takes courage. That kind of deep self-reflection takes guts, and he has my admiration for it.

Einhard

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hmm, fully agree with most of what you write, but why should modern democrats feel ashamed for the actions of their peers a half century ago? If they should hang their heads, then Germans or Russians should do the same thing, but I doubt anyone would argue that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Conas

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Simply not true at all. Kennedy refused outright to have a war in Vietnam. He had made plans to withdraw troops from Vietnam actually. So your statement is utterly false. People in the Military Industrial Complex wanted that war to happen and JFK wasn't going to give it to them.

The sly arsed pig Johnson gave it to them, and the sole responsibility lay with him, and so it happened. Then Nixon carried the torch after him. So the Republicans should be hanging their heads in shame too. Romney supported the oil stealing, pointless war in Iraq, that disgraced America, where torture went unpunished, and thousands of innocent people died, based on pure lies. But you wont mention that though will you?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

RobbingBandit wrote: »

At least he got to dream in a bed of being President, unlike McCain and his bamboo jail cell.

joseph brand wrote: »

Is this an attempt at trolling? It makes no sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YeDtpmxlsY

joseph brand

I'm as anti-war/ anti-invasion as anyone. If Romney didn't want to go and fight over in Vietnam, (and I'm sure a lot of those who had to go weren't overly excited about the whole idea), I can't argue with his views on Vietnam.

They usually send the poor, but that's for another thread.

The point is that the CNN 'documentary' is ridiculous at best.

How will the US troops view Romney, when he asks them to fight for their country, using words like honour and pride and courage? Listening to a draft-dodger wouldn't be very inspirational.

"Do as I say, don't do as I do!"

It would be a bit rich of Romney to send troops off to war while he himself is against war (when he might have to occupy a trench versus a desk).

Conas

joseph brand wrote: »

I'm as anti-war/ anti-invasion as anyone. If Romney didn't want to go and fight over in Vietnam, (and I'm sure a lot of those who had to go weren't overly excited about the whole idea), I can't argue with his views on Vietnam.

Fair enough, Bruce Springsteen didn't go to Vietnam but he's always been anti-war, on the other side Romney is pro war.

At 19 years of age he was out protesting in favour of the Vietnam, but when his draft came he dodged it, which was a disgrace. His views were pro war, but when his time came he ran and hid.

RobbingBandit

Seems he was on a French Mormon Mission retreat at the time of the draft,fun time this is for all us bystanders watching each camp fling propaganda at the other. One a draft dodging secretive religious rich guy and the other a pseudo foreign national right wing democrat that has failed to deliver many of his campaign promises.

Romney has a good alibi in the Mormon retreat, who knows if it is true but if he is elected he won't be the first to have dogged a draft, albeit Bush did his service on US soil rather than in Vietnam but I would call him a dogger for that.;)

Conas

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Romney has a good alibi in the Mormon retreat, who knows if it is true but if he is elected he won't be the first to have dogged a draft, albeit Bush did his service on US soil rather than in Vietnam but I would call him a dogger for that.;)

Daddy Bush knew it wasn't a war worth sending his son to fight. So let the poor fellas go and die. Dick Cheney was the worst of them all though. He got 5 deferments, and everyone knows his role in the torture in Iraq.

How can anyone trust Republicans, because at the end of the day, when the going gets tough they'll run and hide and blame someone else. Wants a chicken always a chicken.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As prospective President of the Republic who will probably order kids into foreign lands to meet their doom, it is spectacularly cowardly and hypocritical.

As for the whole 'democrats should be ashamed for what they did 50 years ago' thing, thats just bizarre.

I hold a rather unconventional view of military service as it happens. I think conscription is a much fairer system. It creates a citizen army which in a democracy is more humane than a professional army populated by people who are either poor (qualified for little else so they learn how to kill things) or people naturally attracted to the idea of killing things. Plus, rich and poor alike would be forced to perform a period of military service, removing many of the class barriers that affect most western countries. You would have a small core professional officer class in permanent employment and the rest would serve 6-12 months at some period between the age of 18 and 25. I know its not exactly a popular idea, but it would be far healthier for the democracy if its army was in the hands of the citizenry rather than professional soldiers.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fact democrats rarely try to sell themselves as a pacifist party. In America that would be very bad politics (People like their politicians to kill things that scare them in the states) Thats an effect of Republican propaganda. As any democrat will tell you (lamentably) Republicans have successfully portrayed democrats as lily livered cowards who can't be trusted with national security. Its the whole 'mommy' versus 'daddy' hypothesis. When Americans feel secure in their place in the world or feel that something is amiss structurally with their society, they'll elect a 'mommy' (Carter, Clinton, Obama) when they fear a foreign threat, real or imagined, they'll elect a 'daddy' (Reagan, Bush)

I think it was around 2006 when President Bush made a speech to congress, castigating democrats (Who were blocking extra money for the Iraq war) who were 'formally the party of Truman, Kennedy and FDR'.

So to be honest, your criticism or the supposed 'revisionism' is mostly in your own imagination.

Mjollnir

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

His father is irrelevant to Mitt's actions, and he's not running for office. The rest of his family's opinions are irrelevant to Mitt's actions.

Not only did Mitt dodge the draft, he protested in favor of it, and now he's rattling sabers like a typical chicken hawk.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2083002/Mitt-Romney-19-demonstrated-favour-Vietnam-War-draft.html

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

I hold a rather unconventional view of military service as it happens. I think conscription is a much fairer system.

Considering how a few weeks back you decried Romney's 15% tax rate as 'morally abhorrent', and you are now calling for military conscription, I'm wondering what moral hymn sheet you're singing from?

Genuine question, I'm not being smart. I don't see how conscription can be tolerated morally but a 15% rate of tax on a high earner isn't?

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Considering how a few weeks back you decried Romney's 15% tax rate as 'morally abhorrent', and you are now calling for military conscription, I'm wondering what moral hymn sheet you're singing from?

Genuine question, I'm not being smart. I don't see how conscription can be tolerated morally but a 15% rate of tax on a high earner isn't?

15% is less than what I pay in tax. That is reason enough for it to be abhorrent.

The moral basis of my argument for conscription is that it would be a citizen army populated by the people, irrespective of wealth, gender etc. It would be the greatest 'leveller' of the classes in any country since the creation of the NHS following the second world war. At the moment young men are sent off to die because they are either too poor and badly qualified to do anything else or because they are borderline psycopathic. That to me is morally abhorrent, but I suppose to you it would be a sign of the free market at work.

As a sidenote, the Roman republic began its gradual demise because Marius reorganised the army, creating a permanent professional force and getting rid of the old farming based citizen army. Long campaigns were tolerated by soldiers only if the republic or state was under threat. The odd war of conquest happened too of course, but was rather mild by later standards. The professional soldiers however didn't care about that, they cared only about money. Influential generals used these soldiers as personal armies and conquered vast lands in the East and in Gaul. The professional soldier doesn't have an ultimate loyalty to the state, constitution, flag, or any of that guff, and so they belonged to their paymaster, not the state. As ever, money will always trump values when we get right down to it.

Dirk Gently

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you implying he avoided it on moral grounds and that a Romney government will be a pacifist government? It seems much more likely that he avoided it as he was happy to let others go and fight a war he supported. It also seems much more likely that a Romney government would be more unilateral and forceful in intervening militarily than an obama government. I can't disprove your wild theory though, just like I can't disprove the existence of god. Must be true so, right?

20Cent

Romney protested for the draft! He was all for the war so long as he didn't have to fight it. He knew he could get an exemption being a Morman missionary, one of those annoying people who hand you flyers about their religion in the street or knock on your door.

He doesn't agree with diplomacy in regard to Iran

From the RNC speech.
On another front, every American is less secure today
because he has failed to slow Iran's nuclear threat. In his
first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran.
We are still talking, and Iran's centrifuges are still
spinning.


He also wants to mess with Russia
Under my presidency our friends will see more
loyalty and Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and
more backbone.

Note he didn't even mention Iraq/Afghanistan or the troops who fought and died there obviously didn't think them important enough. (Imagine the uproar if Obama didn't mention the troops!!) He's a chickenhawk the same as Bush, Cheney etc A war with Iran is much more likely under his watch.

RobbingBandit

Interesting list of who did or did not serve. Apologies if this is seen as off topic.

http://www.jacksonbrowne.com/readings/service-armed-forces

Suryavarman

Denerick wrote: »

15% is less than what I pay in tax. That is reason enough for it to be abhorrent.

You pay more than $3,000,000 in tax annually?

The moral basis of my argument for conscription is that it would be a citizen army populated by the people, irrespective of wealth, gender etc. It would be the greatest 'leveller' of the classes in any country since the creation of the NHS following the second world war. At the moment young men are sent off to die because they are either too poor and badly qualified to do anything else or because they are borderline psycopathic. That to me is morally abhorrent, but I suppose to you it would be a sign of the free market at work.

As a sidenote, the Roman republic began its gradual demise because Marius reorganised the army, creating a permanent professional force and getting rid of the old farming based citizen army. Long campaigns were tolerated by soldiers only if the republic or state was under threat. The odd war of conquest happened too of course, but was rather mild by later standards. The professional soldiers however didn't care about that, they cared only about money. Influential generals used these soldiers as personal armies and conquered vast lands in the East and in Gaul. The professional soldier doesn't have an ultimate loyalty to the state, constitution, flag, or any of that guff, and so they belonged to their paymaster, not the state. As ever, money will always trump values when we get right down to it.

So is it because you are jealous of people being better off than you that modern nations must have slavery or because the Roman Empire collapsed because of a lack of slavery, modern nations have to have slavery?

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

15% is less than what I pay in tax. That is reason enough for it to be abhorrent.

Declarative statements don't exactly explain why you believe it to be morally abhorrent. What is the moral basis for asking the state to rob rich people of their wealth more than not rich people?

Denerick wrote: »

The moral basis of my argument for conscription is that it would be a citizen army populated by the people, irrespective of wealth, gender etc. It would be the greatest 'leveller' of the classes in any country since the creation of the NHS following the second world war.

What is the moral basis for coercing individuals to join the army? For punishing them for being against war? What morality does that represent?

Denerick wrote: »

It would be the greatest 'leveller' of the classes in any country since the creation of the NHS following the second world war.

Ah I see, all the other concerns are secondary towards the great aim of eradicating class differences. Where have I heard that before? Considering discussion of certain political theorists is now censured, I'll hope others can see the not-so-subtle ideological influence at work here.

20Cent

Valmont wrote: »

Declarative statements don't exactly explain why you believe it to be morally abhorrent. What is the moral basis for asking the state to rob rich people of their wealth more than not rich people?

Tax is theft yawn.

Valmont wrote: »

What is the moral basis for coercing individuals to join the army? For punishing them for being against war? What morality does that represent?

Change the topic from Romney to something more controversial.

Valmont wrote: »

Ah I see, all the other concerns are secondary towards the great aim of eradicating class differences. Where have I heard that before? Considering discussion of certain political theorists is now censured, I'll hope others can see the not-so-subtle ideological influence at work here.

You're a marxist/communist or something yawn,
What political theorists are being censored? The victim complex. Ron Paul wasn't allowed speak at the RNC that what you mean?

newcavanman

Whatever the plusses or minuses of Romney, is there not one single reason why he should be POTUS ? he is not Obama ! Obama has done next to nothing to improve either the USA or the rest of the world . His stimulus package seems to jhave had little or no effect on the american economy . His foreign policy seems to be big on Hope and not too much tangible change .
The simple fact is that the rest of the world will only respect a strong United States , anything else will be viewed as weakness. this weakness is more likely to cause incidents or similar with the chinese ., and this could easily lead to war, which would seriously affect us all.
What the USA needs is another Ronald Regan , love him or hate him, you cant argue with what he achieved , transfoming the US and the rest of the western world .

Valmont

I don't think any discussions on the merit of Obama vs Romney are going to go anywhere constructive considering they are two sides of the same large and growing Federal coin. The state will grow, its debt will grow, the only difference between Obama and Romney is which lobby group gets access to the 'faucet'. And even then many of the lobby groups will get access either way.

One word: farce.

KyussBishop

Valmont wrote: »

I don't think any discussions on the merit of Obama vs Romney are going to go anywhere constructive considering they are two sides of the same large and growing Federal coin. The state will grow, its debt will grow, the only difference between Obama and Romney is which lobby group gets access to the 'faucet'. And even then many of the lobby groups will get access either way.

One word: farce.

I agree with the general gist of this (though maybe not 100% with the details); what I don't get though, is why people are defending Romney's regressive tax payments? (regressive as in, him paying less percentage wise than people who earn less)

Even if the people defending that are in favour of no taxes overall, that's not an excuse for defending regressive taxes in the current tax system.
Remember also, that you can never get rid of government 100% so there will always be taxes, so if people are defending regressive taxes then it would apply to that minimal-government system they prefer as well.

So that strikes me as yet another step beyond general minimal-government/less-tax views: People don't just want to pay less tax, but defend those earning more paying less (as a percentage of income) than everyone else?

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

Declarative statements don't exactly explain why you believe it to be morally abhorrent. What is the moral basis for asking the state to rob rich people of their wealth more than not rich people?

I'm not going to defend the right of the state to tax people, or perhaps more accurately, tax wealthy people more than poor people. Because I believe in a state, a nation, a society, a social democracy where your opportunities in life are not decided by what family you were born in to. I know neo-aristocracy is all the rage these days, but most people would find your position abhorrent. The moral basis which you went out of your way to italicise is that one child who grows up homeless and has to beg for food from passersby is one child too many. The wealthy have lots of money, the poor have very little, that is all the moral reasoning one should require. I sometimes wonder if libertarians actively want to see a social revolution where people literally rise up and kill the wealthy. Because that is where your reasoning will ultimately bring us to.

What disgusts me most about neo liberal orthodoxy is how contemptuously relaxed it is about poverty. 'Oh well, their parents are lazy, those children deserve to starve, I need my 15 million dollars to buy another yacht in Sardinia'. Ostentatious wealth is despicable when people are literally dying for the want of the most basic fooking necessities of life. Utterly reprehensible.

What is the moral basis for coercing individuals to join the army? For punishing them for being against war? What morality does that represent?

Look, I doubt national service will ever be re-introduced to any western country ever again, except in periods of major international war (Which is again unlikely since nukes pretty much make armed conflict between nations unlikely anyway - at least two nations that both have nukes)

I think that western countries with conscription tend to have more cohesive societies than those which don't. But I'll drop the point because I realise I haven't properly thought it through. It was a rather reflective opinion, I hadn't given it much thought to be perfectly honest.

I do like the idea of a citizen army serving in order to protect their democratic state as opposed to a professional army staffed by people with little other choice and/or psychopaths. But I suppose the means to bring that about would be rather draconian. Plus, I also recognise its a little self serving. I'm not sure how much I'd be in favour of conscription were I just turning 18 again!

Ah I see, all the other concerns are secondary towards the great aim of eradicating class differences. Where have I heard that before? Considering discussion of certain political theorists is now censured, I'll hope others can see the not-so-subtle ideological influence at work here.

Blah blah blah. Just come out and say it. Reds under the bed and all that crap.

Denerick

Valmont wrote: »

I don't think any discussions on the merit of Obama vs Romney are going to go anywhere constructive considering they are two sides of the same large and growing Federal coin. The state will grow, its debt will grow, the only difference between Obama and Romney is which lobby group gets access to the 'faucet'. And even then many of the lobby groups will get access either way.

One word: farce.

I too would agree with the main thrust of this, but we can all get a little lost in the whole 'both parties are the same' thing. Who can honestly say that America would have been more warlike if Al Gore had become president in 2000, or that the state would have grown exponentially without FDR, or that taxes would have come down without Reagan? I don't think any of that is necessarily true, and I think its important to bear in mind that your vote does count. Especially when the Republicans seem so far in hock to social conservative fundamentalism that should give anyone a chill in their spine.

Eliot Rosewater

KyussBishop wrote: »

I agree with the general gist of this (though maybe not 100% with the details); what I don't get though, is why people are defending Romney's regressive tax payments? (regressive as in, him paying less percentage wise than people who earn less)

Even if the people defending that are in favour of no taxes overall, that's not an excuse for defending regressive taxes in the current tax system.
Remember also, that you can never get rid of government 100% so there will always be taxes, so if people are defending regressive taxes then it would apply to that minimal-government system they prefer as well.

So that strikes me as yet another step beyond general minimal-government/less-tax views: People don't just want to pay less tax, but defend those earning more paying less (as a percentage of income) than everyone else?

A good point in general, but it's worth finding out why Romney pays less of a percent than those earning less than he does. For instance, Obama has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary (apparently) but this is, I believe, because he donates so much money to charity, and these donations are exempt from tax. In this case I think Obama having a lower rate than his secretary is a good thing, because the system incentivizing charitable giving is a good thing.

Denerick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

because the system incentivizing charitable giving is a good thing.

Not necessarily. If I went without paying tax for ten years I'd have enough to pay for a community center as well, probably have my name up on the side of the wall too. People can be charitable after tax, I don't see why they should endanger the smooth running of the welfare state.

Lets point something rather obvious out. If people actually paid the level of taxation they are supposed to and at the supposedly nominal marginal rates already in place, there would be no debt crisis in any western country.

KyussBishop

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

A good point in general, but it's worth finding out why Romney pays less of a percent than those earning less than he does. For instance, Obama has a lower effective tax rate than his secretary (apparently) but this is, I believe, because he donates so much money to charity, and these donations are exempt from tax. In this case I think Obama having a lower rate than his secretary is a good thing, because the system incentivizing charitable giving is a good thing.

That's a fair point, but charitable donations often are far from politically-neutral (especially in the case of Romney, who has donated to a charity he owns), and are often more a form of tax-deductable lobbying from my point of view (it's a big wad of extra money, that can be directed at the donators choosing to further political goals).

I think that tax deductions there should be curtailed or more severely restricted (I don't know if it's better for there to be no deductions, but it's far too lax as it is now); certainly they should not allow effective tax rates to dip far below most everyone else.

snafuk35

Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan all got cushy rear echelon posts far from from the front lines during WW2. Kennedy volunteered for and saw lots of combat and had his PT boat cut in two by a Japanese destroyer and injured his back. Bush flew combat missions and had his plane shot down in the Pacific. Clinton spend Vietnam studying in England smoking dope and screwing hippy chicks. Bush Jnr. flew jet interceptors with the Texas National Guard, allowing him to go on benders and never flew in Vietnam. Obama never joined the military. So Romney if he becomes President joins a list of Presidents who never saw combat or shirked the opportunity.

MadsL

Romney as Fortunate Son, funny how these leading Republicans, with the notable exception of McCain seem to manage that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec0XKhAHR5I

The song fits Romney to a T.

Some folks are born to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,

snafuk35

MadsL wrote: »

Romney as Fortunate Son, funny how these leading Republicans, with the notable exception of McCain seem to manage that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec0XKhAHR5I

The song fits Romney to a T.

Some folks are born to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail to the chief",
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senator's son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,

A number of Senator's sons DID serve in Vietnam and probably the most prominent was the future Vice President Al Gore, who decided to enlist because as he told his good friend Tommy Lee Jones, who was his house mate in college: "if he found a fancy way of not going, someone else would have to go in his place."
He opposed the war but his college friends didn't understand and when he turned up to say goodbye for the last time before he left he was jeered and booed. His experience did not change is opinion of the war but he said "didn't change my conclusions about the war being a terrible mistake, but it struck me that opponents to the war, including myself, really did not take into account the fact that there were an awful lot of South Vietnamese who desperately wanted to hang on to what they called freedom. Coming face to face with those sentiments expressed by people who did the laundry and ran the restaurants and worked in the fields was something I was naively unprepared for."

Senator John McCain whose father and grandfather had both been four star admirals flew combat missions in the war and was shot down, imprisoned and tortured in the notorious "Hanoi Hilton."

Errol Flynn's son Sean was a freelance reporter with Time magazine and went to Vietnam to cover the war. It is believed he was captured, tortured and murdered by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.