'08 Presidential Candidates: Who served & who didn't
POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Friday, August 25, 2023 18:32
VIEWED: 13523
PAGE 7 of 10
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?
It certainly isn't me. I asked you a valid question, and I'm waiting on an answer. If you want Kaneman speaking for you, that's fine; I'll know what category to put your responses in from now on.
If you want to continue to have a decent discussion, respond to my post and we can continue having a nice, respectful chat. If not, off to the nuts and whackos you go.
------------------------------------------
"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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:Quote: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.
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?
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:
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?
Not that many different Posters in this thread to begin with.
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.
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:
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.
Short of drawing you a picture, I'm not sure how I could clarify my position any further.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fourth time is the charm?
Can anyone explain how Bush's military service informed his stellar military decisions ?
He is the signature failure of the premise.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fourth time is the charm?
Can anyone explain how Bush's military service informed his stellar military decisions ?
Can you explain what Bush's military experience has to do with
a: The military experience or lack of for the '08 presidential candidates.
b: The necessity of the Commander-in-Chief having military experience.
Bush is an idiot and no amount of 'experience' could help him out IYO. So why do you keep bringing up Bush? Oh that's right, it's what you do.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
a: The military experience or lack of for the 08 presidential candidates.
The premise (do you know that word?) is that military experience is helpful/ necesary to making good military decisions. Is that true ? By picking one example (Dwight Eisenhower) you might make a case. But by looking at George W Bush and Colin Powell, apparently not. So I was testing the premise. It doesn't stand up.
b: The necessity of the Commander-in-Chief having military experience.
What do you think the experience is good for? If it's for strategy and knowledge of military capability, the person would probably have to have experience at the level of general. But that is not the case being made here, because supposedly any kind of military experience is good. So what is the specific benefit you see? I don't see any.
So out of curiosity I looked up the first few presidents to see if they had military experience.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/chronological.html
George Washington yes 1789-97
John Adams no 1797-1801
Thomas Jefferson no 1801-09
James Madison no 1809-17
I would argue that some of the US's greatest presidents had no military experience, and so it seems to be an insignificant point.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So it's been all downhill as far as President's go since 1817 IYO?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Huh? Are you tryin' to take the discussion off-topic?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BM
Why do you go out of your way to be stupid?
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.
Get a life.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why do you go out of your way to be childish when it is clearly uncalled for?
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.
I can't read your mind Rue, I can only go by what you type. And what you typed was the following,
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.
Nothing in there about the framers of the constitution. Just who you considered to be some of the US's greatest presidents.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Get a life.
That's the second time you have told me this and I find it quite confusing. Do you think people who engage in on-line discussions need to get a life?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME