• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Whoopi Goldberg's Uncomfortable Question To Ann Romney (VIDEO)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,054
3,600
126
Usually it's best not to saber rattle and threaten military action and commit American troops to harm when you wouldn't fight or send your own kids into battle.
Actually, it takes an act of Congress to declare war. You should ask them.

Of course you don't see the issue since you are too old to serve so who gives a fuck about sending Americans to war? It's not your life that is on the line! Am I right?!!/s
Nuclear proliferation puts everyone's lives on the line.
 

Northern Lawn

Platinum Member
May 15, 2008
2,231
1
0
Whoopi is a scumbag shill, I don't understand why Ann would even consider lowering herself to talk to her.
I don't like her either. She is one of the ugliest, most unfunny people on tv yet she calls herself a comic.. I don't know how she ever gets work
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,714
9
81
WW II ~11% served in the military
Vietnam ~4% served in the military

War on Terror 00.45% have served in the military and even less have served in Iraq or Afghanistan... probably around 00.20 to 00.25% of the entire U.S. population.

What's the point of Whoppi's question again? Was she asking why the Romney's sons are among the 99.55% of the U.S. population?
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,223
9,433
136
WW II ~11% served in the military
Vietnam ~4% served in the military

War on Terror 00.45% have served in the military and even less have served in Iraq or Afghanistan... probably around 00.20 to 00.25% of the entire U.S. population.

What's the point of Whoppi's question again? Was she asking why the Romney's sons are among the 99.55% of the U.S. population?
Still not getting it are you?

Does 99.5% of the population advocate war or support policies that would have us go into war? Better yet what percent has the ability to make a decision, directly, for such actions?
 

keird

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2002
3,714
9
81
Still not getting it are you?

Does 99.5% of the population advocate war or support policies that would have us go into war? Better yet what percent has the ability to make a decision, directly, for such actions?
You're right. I have no idea what you're alluding to.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,839
4,900
126
Waiiit a second. How in the hell can he be running for the job of COMMANDER IN CHIEF if he cannot conscientiously go to war??? THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF IS THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE MILITARY.

/head asplode
That's probably the only decent point in this thread.

Is it ok for him to make a decision to go to war according to his religion?
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,273
103
106
Still not getting it are you?

Does 99.5% of the population advocate war or support policies that would have us go into war? Better yet what percent has the ability to make a decision, directly, for such actions?
I don't know what exactly you're trying to say. Are you saying that Obama should not be president because he hasn't served and thus can't make decisions to put military in harms way? Or is just Romney?

Whoopi's line of questioning was moronic, and that's not surprising coming from her.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
2
0
It's a bullsh*t question.

Unfortunately it's not PC to say "Look, I'm just glad my kids didn't have to go over there. They didn't want to and had good enough other opportunities not to need to. To be honest I'm glad somebody else's kids are doing this instead of mine."

Particularly these days the US is wantonly throwing away young men and women's lives in stupidly managed and stupidly motivated conflicts.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,566
1,524
126
Why the question from Woopie?
Well, Mitt actually vocally supported the Vietnam war, but refused to serve.
That was odd to say the least....
And Mitt has been bosom buddies with the VERY SAME GW Bush war hawks that got us into so many wars.
The same Bush people Mitt will have in his cabinet..... COUNT ON THAT!
That should be of major concern to everyone.
Mitt has 5 sons, none of which have served. Mitt is perfectly fine with that.
That should raise a few eyebrows to say the least?
Mitt, like John Mc Cain, believe "boots on the ground" is the only way to engage in war.
So with Mitt playing the macho war hawk of the world, there is no way Mitt can start and maintain all his wars without starting the draft.
Are you ready to see your kids drafted by Mitt Romney into war?
And my BIG concern, republicans have lost that once held advantage when it comes to foreign affairs.
Democrats have shown they can get just as tough as any republican in the whitehouse.
So how would/could a Mitt Romney regain that advantage back for republicans?
How could/would Mitt Romney take back that title from democrats?
By starting more war(s). Show the world we mean business. Rule the world!!!
And Mitt, just like GW Bush and all those Bush war hawks, would not hesitate one second to engage in new war(s).
Yes, and even lie to the people if necessary. Just like old GW.

With all the hot spots in the world, and that one track mind of Mitt Romney and his war gang, you know war and more war is enviable under an Romney administration.
And with no possible way to maintain all those new prolonged war engagements, guess what folks. THE DRAFT!
Just like during that good old Vietnam era.
Would Mitt Romney's own sons sign up? Serve?
You tell me....
Wee all know the answer, but you tell me....
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,566
1,524
126
I posted with out first watching that video from the view.
I just watched it.
My immersion from Ann Romney was, its ok for your son to go, but not for mine.

Going to serve religious obligations, going to funerals, is NOT the same at any stretch as a son or daughter going off to serve in war.
Im sorry Ann... Not the same. Not even close. Period.
Disguising answer.....
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Why the question from Woopie?
Well, Mitt actually vocally supported the Vietnam war, but refused to serve.
That was odd to say the least....
And Mitt has been bosom buddies with the VERY SAME GW Bush war hawks that got us into so many wars.
The same Bush people Mitt will have in his cabinet..... COUNT ON THAT!
That should be of major concern to everyone.
Mitt has 5 sons, none of which have served. Mitt is perfectly fine with that.
That should raise a few eyebrows to say the least?
Mitt, like John Mc Cain, believe "boots on the ground" is the only way to engage in war.
So with Mitt playing the macho war hawk of the world, there is no way Mitt can start and maintain all his wars without starting the draft.
Are you ready to see your kids drafted by Mitt Romney into war?
And my BIG concern, republicans have lost that once held advantage when it comes to foreign affairs.
Democrats have shown they can get just as tough as any republican in the whitehouse.
So how would/could a Mitt Romney regain that advantage back for republicans?
How could/would Mitt Romney take back that title from democrats?
By starting more war(s). Show the world we mean business. Rule the world!!!
And Mitt, just like GW Bush and all those Bush war hawks, would not hesitate one second to engage in new war(s).
Yes, and even lie to the people if necessary. Just like old GW.

With all the hot spots in the world, and that one track mind of Mitt Romney and his war gang, you know war and more war is enviable under an Romney administration.
And with no possible way to maintain all those new prolonged war engagements, guess what folks. THE DRAFT!
Just like during that good old Vietnam era.
Would Mitt Romney's own sons sign up? Serve?
You tell me....
Wee all know the answer, but you tell me....
My grandfather, father, uncles, brother, and myself have served, my daughter has been serving in the Army for 6 years. When Obama signs his girls up for JROTC I will consider voting for him. If serving in the military is good for my daughter then it should also be good for Obama's daughters.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,566
1,524
126
PS. As for Obama. Obama has and is focused on ending war. Not engaging in more war.
And if we must, Obama does not believe boots on the ground os the only way in war.

Once again, two men.
One living in the 1950's, and the other in the current times.
Technology to fight war, to me, is far more terrorizing to the enemy that boots on the ground.
A country doesn't mourn the loss of machinery.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,146
9
81
Usually it's best not to saber rattle and threaten military action and commit American troops to harm when you wouldn't fight or send your own kids into battle.

Of course you don't see the issue since you are too old to serve so who gives a fuck about sending Americans to war? It's not your life that is on the line! Am I right?!!/s


And the reason whoopie asked anne instead of Romney is because Romney pussied out and cancelled his appearance! Must be those scary liberal women he's heard about!
Still not getting it are you?

Does 99.5% of the population advocate war or support policies that would have us go into war? Better yet what percent has the ability to make a decision, directly, for such actions?
what? so Obama shouldn't be President? how racist.


Usually it's best not to saber rattle and threaten military action and commit American troops to harm when you wouldn't fight or send your own kids into battle.

Of course you don't see the issue since you are too old to serve so who gives a fuck about sending Americans to war? It's not your life that is on the line! Am I right?!!/s


And the reason whoopie asked anne instead of Romney is because Romney pussied out and cancelled his appearance! Must be those scary liberal women he's heard about!
That's probably the only decent point in this thread.

Is it ok for him to make a decision to go to war according to his religion?
yes. he will be able to make the decision to go to war if needed.

Same with Obama. just because neither served means nothing. And while the odds of either of them having children serve is zero it means nothing.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Waiiit a second. How in the hell can he be running for the job of COMMANDER IN CHIEF if he cannot conscientiously go to war??? THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF IS THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE MILITARY.

/head asplode
Mormons can, and historically have, gone to war:

War

The Lord has said that in the last days there will be “wars and rumors of wars, and the whole earth shall be in commotion, and men’s hearts shall fail them” (D&C 45:26). As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are a people of peace. We follow the Savior, who is the Prince of Peace. We look forward to His millennial reign, when wars will end and peace will be restored to the earth (see Isaiah 2:4). However, we recognize that in this world, government leaders sometimes send military troops to war to defend their nations and ideals.

Additional Information

Latter-day Saints in the military do not need to feel torn between their country and their God. In the Church, “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12). Military service shows dedication to this principle.
If Latter-day Saints are called upon to go into battle, they can look to the example of Captain Moroni, the great military leader in the Book of Mormon. Although he was a mighty warrior, he “did not delight in bloodshed” (Alma 48:11). He was “firm in the faith of Christ,” and his only reason for fighting was to “defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion” (Alma 48:13). If Latter-day Saints must go to war, they should go in a spirit of truth and righteousness, with a desire to do good. They should go with love in their hearts for all God’s children, including those on the opposing side. Then, if they are required to shed another’s blood, their action will not be counted as a sin.
http://www.lds.org/topics/war?lang=eng

War is to be a last resort, with peace the far preferred method. Those who are angry about Bush's wars and therefor logically must also be angry about Obama's wars, should vote for Romney since he has a far lower chance of taking us to war than Obama does.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I posted with out first watching that video from the view.
I just watched it.
My immersion from Ann Romney was, its ok for your son to go, but not for mine.

Going to serve religious obligations, going to funerals, is NOT the same at any stretch as a son or daughter going off to serve in war.
Im sorry Ann... Not the same. Not even close. Period.
Disguising answer.....
You had that view of her before you watched it...then you looked for things to confirm your already decided view.

PS. As for Obama. Obama has and is focused on ending war. Not engaging in more war.
The people he ordered our military to kill in Libya would disagree with you...but they are dead. Of course, you probably believe his lie that using planes and bombs and missiles to blow up tanks and people is not actually engaging in military hostilities...
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,223
9,433
136
I don't know what exactly you're trying to say. Are you saying that Obama should not be president because he hasn't served and thus can't make decisions to put military in harms way? Or is just Romney?

Whoopi's line of questioning was moronic, and that's not surprising coming from her.
You're right. I have no idea what you're alluding to.
It's kinda like the guy who is against abortion and who happens to have the ability to pass laws that ban abortion and then who pays for his mistress to have an abortion. Abortions are ok for him but not for anyone else. (this would never happen, it's just an example of uber hypocrisy/s).

We have two people who will potentially have the power to send people into battle, either ditectly or indirectly through their foreign policy and we have two men that have never served in the military. The difference being, one is opposed to war and will only use military action as a last resort (and he has voted against previous wars and has done what he can to minimize putting boots on the ground) compared to a guy who seems to indicate that a military option should be used and not as a last resort (and he supported previous wars).
I would say one man is being a little hypocritical wouldn't you?

PS. As for Obama. Obama has and is focused on ending war. Not engaging in more war.
And if we must, Obama does not believe boots on the ground os the only way in war.

Once again, two men.
One living in the 1950's, and the other in the current times.
Technology to fight war, to me, is far more terrorizing to the enemy that boots on the ground.
A country doesn't mourn the loss of machinery.
Someone gets it.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
0
0
It's kinda like the guy who is against abortion and who happens to have the ability to pass laws that ban abortion and then who pays for his mistress to have an abortion. Abortions are ok for him but not for anyone else. (this would never happen, it's just an example of uber hypocrisy/s).

We have two people who will potentially have the power to send people into battle, either ditectly or indirectly through their foreign policy and we have two men that have never served in the military. The difference being, one is opposed to war and will only use military action as a last resort (and he has voted against previous wars and has done what he can to minimize putting boots on the ground) compared to a guy who seems to indicate that a military option should be used and not as a last resort (and he supported previous wars).
I would say one man is being a little hypocritical wouldn't you?
Someone gets it.
Yes, it's obvious that Obama is a fucking hypocrite for involving us in Libya. Thanks for making that point so clearly.
 

Baked

Lifer
Dec 28, 2004
36,152
16
81
How is it an ambush when Mrs. Romney knew exactly what she's getting herself into by going onto a primarily democratic talk show? So she's allowed to have her agenda of pulling votes for her husband, but the hosts are not allowed to question her and her husband's patriotism? :rolleyes;
 
Feb 4, 2009
29,904
10,452
136

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,103
3,390
136
Ann Romney the Gladiatrix entering the The View Colesseum full of wicked heathen women is no match for 'ol Bill Clinton the bludgeon and his smackdown of Chris Wallace and O'Reilly on FOX.

Moral of the story: Ann, don't play with the wolves if you think yourself a fox.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY