FACT of LIFE: Doctors don't need Generals, but Generals need Doctors

[pruner]

start your spinning Clarkies.

:evilgrin:

how's your boy feeling?

[JohnKleeb]

1. Hey thats true

hehe,

[dfong63]

2. i'd rather vote for a guy who worked in hospitals,

... instead of a guy who bombed them.

[Don_G]

3. Remember M*A*S*H?

How many times did the 4077th need Generals and how many times did the Generals need them?

War is like that too; Generals take an objective and the Docs save theirs.

[kaitykaity]

4. Locking.

Please see rule #2 here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=463744

2. The subject line of a discussion thread and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include profanity, excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation. Inflammatory rhetoric should also be avoided. Exceptions may be allowed for threads about our shared political opponents and/or policies which we generally oppose.

"Clarkies" is considered inflammatory.

[CoffeePlease1947]

5. Simple minds think simply--this is so lame a statement

First off, doctors would be really busy is there no Generals to protect people from getting bombed, shot, stabbed, or otherwise dismembered.

Second, General Clark saved the lives of two million people. How many doctors do you know that have done this? Only a handful maybe.

Third, how many doctors work on vanity rather than actual needed operations that are a matter of live and death?

Nip and Tuck.

Mike