Doug Miller wrote:

In article ?, "Michael A. Terrell" ? wrote:
?
?Doug Miller wrote:
??
?? In article ?, "Michael A.
? Terrell" ? wrote:
?? ?
?? ?Doug Miller wrote:
?? ??
?? ?? In article ?, "Michael A.
?? ? Terrell" ? wrote:
?? ?? ?
?? ?? ? I still beleive that anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs
?? ?? ?to be a Veteran with a Honorable Discharge.
?? ?? ?
?? ??
?? ?? While that standard would have disqualified Obama and Clinton, it would
? not
?? ?? have prevented the election of Carter, Nixon, or Lyndon Johnson.
?? ?
?? ?
?? ? So what?
??
?? So what's the point of creating additional qualifications for the office, if
?? they don't serve to weed out the incompetent or the dishonest?
?
?
? You make that claim, so prove that it won't.
?
I already did.

Since you apparently weren't paying attention, I'll spell it out for you:

Suppose that criterion had been in place from the beginning. It would not have
prevented the election of Nixon (dishonest), Carter (incompetent), and LBJ
(both incompetent and dishonest). Nor would it have prevented the candidacies
of John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, or Walter Mondale. All seven of these
men are veterans, with (AFAIK) honorable discharges.


Sigh.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.