On 5/3/2011 5:42 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
In articleAZSdnZzKzMIkBF3QnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@earthlink .com, "Michael A. 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.


It's all about what you know. The people saying military backgrounds are
needed for our leaders just don't know what they are talking about. It's
been known for thousands of years that being in the military is of no
use when it comes to political jobs. I've read this exact point from
writers living during the Roman Empire. They said that having been a
general was of no use in being a political leader.

They knew this two thousand years ago. Lots of us know this today. It's
not a surprise that someone like that idiot Terrell wouldn't. I guess he
never got a liberal arts education. Too bad. That ignorance shows in
things like this.

Hawke