Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
No one is disagreeing with your position that a military background could be helpful. In fact, you'll find that almost everyone agrees with that statement.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
Since when is the military the be all, end all? And what do most of the wars we've fought in the last 60 years have to do with our freedoms?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Yeah, that's what we want. Good ties between the presidency and the military. Something closer to a junta should do it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
But having military as a CiC does not always good decision making make.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
The CinC has the responsibility of defining the objectives - that's *IT*, period, end of story.
For that, military experience is neither preferable nor required, we have plenty of brass in the pentagon to do the job and I think a lot of our failure rests with them, because it's THEIR job to see it done.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
What people are disagreeing with is the idea that military service is necessary for a good CiC. That's the difference. It is no more necessary to the job than a doctorate in economics, physics, or any other field that a decision might have to be made in. If our president doesn't have to have an M.D. to make health care policy, he doesn't need military service to make military decisions - but either would be helpful.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I have never stated that military experience is required. My position is that military experience would be prudent for the Commander-in-Chief. The President cannot be all things to all people but he/she should be qualified in most aspects of the job IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
No one is disagreeing with your position that a military background could be helpful. In fact, you'll find that almost everyone agrees with that statement.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
Since when is the military the be all, end all? And what do most of the wars we've fought in the last 60 years have to do with our freedoms?

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
The President cannot be all things to all people but he/she should be qualified in most aspects of the job IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
The President cannot be all things to all people but he/she should be qualified in most aspects of the job IMHO.

---

Just trying to clarify.

You feel that the role of CiC makes up most if not the majority of the responsibilities of the presidency, is that correct?

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I disagree, and so too did Eisenhower, in spite of the fact that he did have such experience.

So too did Smedley Butler.

A little homework on this is advised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:

That is why there is the CiC title.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
So now you're not just answering for Antimason, but BigDamnNobody also? If I had wanted a clarification on his position from you, I'd have said, "Hey Kaneman, why don't you tell me what BDN thinks?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
So now you're not just answering for Antimason, but BigDamnNobody also? If I had wanted a clarification on his position from you, I'd have said, "Hey Kaneman, why don't you tell me what BDN thinks?"

---

Now who's getting defensive?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
Since when is the military the be all, end all? And what do most of the wars we've fought in the last 60 years have to do with our freedoms?

---

She said "end all be all," which was in response to your OP, which implied that it was necessary for a CiC to have military experience.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Frem and Rue don't think it's a good idea that the CiC has military ties, but then again, I said most of the posters in the thread, not all of them, didn't I?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I have never stated that military experience is required. My position is that military experience would be prudent for the Commander-in-Chief. The President cannot be all things to all people but he/she should be qualified in most aspects of the job IMHO.

---

But the military aspect of the job is just that -one aspect. There are far more aspects to the job than just military. There are economics, sciences, management, health care, and so on and so forth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:I think instead of admitting your OP might have implied what you didn't intend and agreeing, you're trying to get defensive. Just clarify your position.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Fourth time is the charm?
Can anyone explain how Bush's military service informed his stellar military decisions ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Why do you go out of your way to be stupid?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I looked up the first few b/c if anyone had a clue as to what CiC entailed it would probably be the people who wrote the constitution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I would argue that some of the US's greatest presidents had no military experience, and so it seems to be an insignificant point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Get a life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:

That is why there is the CiC title.

---

So now you're not just answering for Antimason, but BigDamnNobody also? If I had wanted a clarification on his position from you, I'd have said, "Hey Kaneman, why don't you tell me what BDN thinks?"

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Huh? Are you tryin' to take the discussion off-topic?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
Is this a board just for you? If a question is asked or an opinion is given....fair game. I still can not believe you teach children........What a dick you are.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
She said "end all be all," which was in response to your OP, which implied

---

If I had wanted you to tell me what you think yinyang meant I would have said "Hey Seven, what do you think yinyang meant.

---

Quote:

---

I agree with your point, I thought that was clear. My point is Commander-in-Chief is in the President's job description. Chief economist, Lead scientist, Surgeon General are not. And as Kaneman stated, the military is the largest, best funded and most active branch of Government now and for the foreseeable future.

---

Quote:

---

Short of drawing you a picture, I'm not sure how I could clarify my position any further.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I don't need to know what she meant, I quoted her specifically, based on what your initial post implied. She was pretty clear, your initial post was not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
In a post-9/11 world I believe the voters should know about a presidential candidate's military service or lack thereof:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
...something to think about when you're casting your vote (either in the general election or in the primaries) on who should be Commander-in-Chief of the brave men and women who are risking their lives to protect American freedom. Remember most of the candidates weren't willing to take that risk.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I think the problem may be one here of interpretation. Many (myself included) see the title as more ceremonial - though I think that may not be the word I'm looking for - than actual. While he certaily is the one pointing the troops in the right direction (well, mostly), he really has no control over the direction of their conflict; that's the job of military advisors and generals. Therefore, prior military service is no more important to being CiC than economic 'service' is to pointing the US's economy in a particular direction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Now, don't misquote me, I do certainly believe that there is a TON of responsibility involved in sending folk to die, and for that reason I do believe having served is a good thing. But I don't think it's the most important qualification for the job.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Short of giving you the finger, I'm letting you know the snarkiness isn't necessary. I've tried to be civil, let's keep it that way. Your OP wasn't as clear as you'd like. Take that any way you want. We've now clarified.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by yinyang:
And, back to the original post, it is not cowardly or unpatriotic to say, "I do not want to aid in the military extension of the United States of America by serving in any of the armed forces," which is what I think is being implied by "weren't willing to take that risk."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
That snarkiness comment goes both ways you know. You haven't had the most auspicious return to regular posting IMHO.

---

Quote:

---

You keep referencing my initial post as being unclear.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
So you agree that a military background is helpful to a President, thanks for your support. With the exception of K man it has been lacking for my position in this thread.

---

No one is disagreeing with your position that a military background could be helpful. In fact, you'll find that almost everyone agrees with that statement.

---

Quote:

---

The C-i-C calls the shots, he gets people killed. Some might say that is much harder than the actual doing. You know, the buck stops here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Good for you if prior millitary service means something to you, but there's no reason to insult people who don't mindlessly go where there Masters tell them to to go and kill people who never did anything personally to them or their families.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
But none of that snarkiness aimed at you, if I recall (unless you happen to be a sockpuppet of some other folk).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
In fact, I believe our first exchange was a smart-mouthed comment from you about how I talk to my students. If you want to move our dialogue down to that level, let me know; I can dish it out with the best of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
The post was unclear because of implication. The OP struck me (and obviously others) as you saying military service was necessary, not beneficial, because it was the absolute most important aspect of the presidency. It derailed the argument when you later said that nobody agreed with you, and your argument that nobody agreed with seemed different from your OP.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
See? People were arguing against a position you didn't hold, based on what they thought your OP meant. Whether or not you thought it was clear doesn't always mean it is; happens to all of us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Are you sure you're in good company? Because if you say MalBadInLatin fast, it sounds like Mal Bin-Laden! And according to the media and what they did to someone else's name (Obama) that's not a good thing!

---

Damn! My cover is blown! Might as well come clean. PN is gonna love this one, I'm actualy a Jewish Communist Gay Nazi shape shifter from Planet X. Osama, Obama, Hillary, Michael Moore, Al Gore, The New York Times editorial staff...yep, you guessed it...all the same person, ME! Where will I go next!? Damn you to !@#$ for exposing me Sig!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
And if I were to see you physically beating on another Poster I should go along my merry because it dosen't involve me? Extreme example, I know, but it hopefully clarifies my position.
If anyone should be able to show patience while trying to get their point across, I figured it would be a teacher. Your hostility towards another who holds a different view than you caught me off guard.

---

Quote:

---

I wish more people would actually respond to the post instead of the Poster. Then perhaps not so many arguments would be misrepresented. How you got me down for military experience being necessary and the most important aspect of the presidency from an underlined Commander-in-Chief is beyond me. Is it because my initial post was in response to yinyang? Y'all thought that I was picking on one of your own so y'all came running to the rescue?

---

Quote:

---

...something to think about when you're casting your vote (either in the general election or in the primaries) on who should be Commander-in-Chief of the brave men and women who are risking their lives to protect American freedom. Remember most of the candidates weren't willing to take that risk.

---

Quote:

---

To some more than others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
I didn't know that the very first post in this thread was a response to another thread where yinuang had posted. If you mean the first post after your initial post, then whatever. Yinyang can defend herself/himself. I'm certainly not going to volunteer to do it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
As far as responding to the post and not the poster:

Quote:

---

...something to think about when you're casting your vote (either in the general election or in the primaries) on who should be Commander-in-Chief of the brave men and women who are risking their lives to protect American freedom. Remember most of the candidates weren't willing to take that risk.

---

These are your words exactly. Wherein do you not think you are implying that military service should be a necessary requirement for the job? "Willing to take the risk" speaks for itself.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:

Damn! My cover is blown! Might as well come clean. PN is gonna love this one, I'm actualy a Jewish Communist Gay Nazi shape shifter from Planet X. Osama, Obama, Hillary, Michael Moore, Al Gore, The New York Times editorial staff...yep, you guessed it...all the same person, ME! Where will I go next!? Damn you to !@#$ for exposing me Sig!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Good for you if prior millitary service means something to you, but there's no reason to insult people who don't mindlessly go where there Masters tell them to to go and kill people who never did anything personally to them or their families.

---

If this was directed at me I have to admit, that's a nice looking stawman ya got there Jack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
You really do take the summer off, body and mind.
The above quote was from Crevanreaver, the original author of this thread. I understand your confusion now, you are mixing up the positions of two different Posters, hopefully unintentionally.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I was just agreeing with YingYang that I don't even consider prior military service when deciding who I like. If that's you, fine, strawman... whatever. Do you even know what that means? It seems like "strawman" in the RWED is the default argument somebody uses when they've got nothing meaningful to say. The use of the word strawman just reeks of snark that plays up the users dilluted self confidence and makes them feel more intelligent than everyone else, when those that are in actuality more intelligent just sit there and shake their head in pity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Once the thread got rolling, I never looked back at who the first poster was, especially once we started exchanging posts,...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Sounds like a textbook strawman argument to me Jack, what say you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Sounds like a textbook strawman argument to me Jack, what say you?

---

Just call me Scarecrow.....

Funny thing is though, BDN, you're not even the person who I was directing my comments at, although I guess my strawman could be pointed your way as well. CR was actually the one who said "Remember most of the candidates weren't willing to take that risk" in his/her original post.

So back off man. Not everything is about you.

EDIT: The more I read my post and the definition of strawman, the less I am convinced that what I said was creating a strawman arguement. All I said was my honest opinion of what a soldier is and that I don't hold them in higher esteem than a civilian. I may have added a bit more drama to it than that, but I fail to see how this is a strawman.


"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

---