Should there be a Separation of Entertainment and State policy?

2»

Comments

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    edited October 2015
    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

    But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

    And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.
    Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.
    Yeah, really.
    As for the president having military training and people being killed by friendly fire.... What does one have to do with the other?? The POTUS has no direct role in incidents like that. It's not like the POTUS is sitting there directing day to day military operations. I'm a bit stunned that so many of you think this is a reasonable requirement this day and age. I don't even want to think about how many incredible potential Presidents would become ineligible if this were a requirement. Imagine telling a kid who says "when I grow up I want to be the President of the USA!" that he should stop even dreaming about it unless he wants to join up with the military and and all that entails... And that further thin out the field by having some of those potentials die either in training (happens a LOT) or during battle. It's hard enough finding people who are actually appropriate for the job. This kind of major restriction would make it next to impossible now that those who were drafted are getting too old to be considered.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • dankinddankind Posts: 20,839
    edited October 2015
    PJ_Soul said:

    As for the president having military training and people being killed by friendly fire.... What does one have to do with the other?? The POTUS has no direct role in incidents like that. It's not like the POTUS is sitting there directing day to day military operations. I'm a bit stunned that so many of you think this is a reasonable requirement this day and age. I don't even want to think about how many incredible potential Presidents would become ineligible if this were a requirement. Imagine telling a kid who says "when I grow up I want to be the President of the USA!" that he should stop even dreaming about it unless he wants to join up with the military and and all that entails... And that further thin out the field by having some of those potentials die either in training (happens a LOT) or during battle. It's hard enough finding people who are actually appropriate for the job. This kind of major restriction would make it next to impossible now that those who were drafted are getting too old to be considered.

    A president with experience in strategic military operations might take a more direct role (although the president does play a more direct role than you think he does) and question some of these specific targets.

    And so far, it's only one and a half of us. I do think it's a reasonable consideration, not a requirement. That's crazy town! Look at our last three presidents. Obviously, "so many of" us don't give two shits about military service.
    Post edited by dankind on
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    dankind said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    As for the president having military training and people being killed by friendly fire.... What does one have to do with the other?? The POTUS has no direct role in incidents like that. It's not like the POTUS is sitting there directing day to day military operations. I'm a bit stunned that so many of you think this is a reasonable requirement this day and age. I don't even want to think about how many incredible potential Presidents would become ineligible if this were a requirement. Imagine telling a kid who says "when I grow up I want to be the President of the USA!" that he should stop even dreaming about it unless he wants to join up with the military and and all that entails... And that further thin out the field by having some of those potentials die either in training (happens a LOT) or during battle. It's hard enough finding people who are actually appropriate for the job. This kind of major restriction would make it next to impossible now that those who were drafted are getting too old to be considered.

    A president with experience in strategic military operations might take a more direct role (although the president does play a more direct role than you think he does) and question some of these specific targets.

    And so far, it's only one and a half of us. I do think it's a reasonable consideration, not a requirement. That's crazy town! Look at our last three presidents. Obviously, "so many of" us don't give two shits about military service.
    Haha, okay, I may have overreacted about how many people are saying this. ;) I am glad to see you didn't mean it should be an actual requirement as was originally suggested. That is the part that I thought is insane (and what I thought you were agreeing with). Sure, a military past is something to consider just like anything else. So is their education. Their business experience. Their personality. Their personal life. Their criminal history. Their work record. Their past cocaine addictions (whoops.... seems people don't mind that one).... There is a HUGE list of things to consider, and no candidate will ever have everything under his own belt, and doesn't need to. As for military experience... it sure as fuck didn't help Bush, did it (if that's what you want to call whatever the fuck he did for the military... go AWOL, was it??).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • dankinddankind Posts: 20,839
    PJ_Soul said:

    dankind said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    As for the president having military training and people being killed by friendly fire.... What does one have to do with the other?? The POTUS has no direct role in incidents like that. It's not like the POTUS is sitting there directing day to day military operations. I'm a bit stunned that so many of you think this is a reasonable requirement this day and age. I don't even want to think about how many incredible potential Presidents would become ineligible if this were a requirement. Imagine telling a kid who says "when I grow up I want to be the President of the USA!" that he should stop even dreaming about it unless he wants to join up with the military and and all that entails... And that further thin out the field by having some of those potentials die either in training (happens a LOT) or during battle. It's hard enough finding people who are actually appropriate for the job. This kind of major restriction would make it next to impossible now that those who were drafted are getting too old to be considered.

    A president with experience in strategic military operations might take a more direct role (although the president does play a more direct role than you think he does) and question some of these specific targets.

    And so far, it's only one and a half of us. I do think it's a reasonable consideration, not a requirement. That's crazy town! Look at our last three presidents. Obviously, "so many of" us don't give two shits about military service.
    Haha, okay, I may have overreacted about how many people are saying this. ;) I am glad to see you didn't mean it should be an actual requirement as was originally suggested. That is the part that I thought is insane (and what I thought you were agreeing with). Sure, a military past is something to consider just like anything else. So is their education. Their business experience. Their personality. Their personal life. Their criminal history. Their work record. Their past cocaine addictions (whoops.... seems people don't mind that one).... There is a HUGE list of things to consider, and no candidate will ever have everything under his own belt, and doesn't need to. As for military experience... it sure as fuck didn't help Bush, did it (if that's what you want to call whatever the fuck he did for the military... go AWOL, was it??).
    Yeah, he was on the "did not serve" side of my list.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    HAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHA !!!!!!!..as you said (sort of) it just makes sense.

    Godfather.

  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    well.....to each their own but dankind has brought up a few very good points...like it or not.

    Godfather.
  • ldent42ldent42 Posts: 7,859
    I hear you Dankind. And there's a LOT more to military service than infantry. I'm not saying that the President should have personally seen combat, and I don't need a President who can assemble a weapon in 10 seconds or anything like that but it would be nice if s/he was at least involved in the military somehow - whether it's military school or working as a Jag lawyer or something. I feel like the military should not just be an abstract concept to someone who wants to be President, no matter how many advisors they get. Another thing too is as far as I know military advisors aren't elected, they're appointed. I know that they are not the ones making decisions, that's still up to the president but you can't really blame the chef for not serving fish when his supplier only offers him beef and chicken you know?

    NYC 06/24/08-Auckland 11/27/09-Chch 11/29/09-Newark 05/18/10-Atlanta 09/22/12-Chicago 07/19/13-Brooklyn 10/18/13 & 10/19/13-Hartford 10/25/13-Baltimore 10/27/13-Auckland 1/17/14-GC 1/19/14-Melbourne 1/24/14-Sydney 1/26/14-Amsterdam 6/16/14 & 6/17/14-Milan 6/20/14-Berlin 6/26/14-Leeds 7/8/14-Milton Keynes 7/11/14-St. Louis 10/3/14-NYC 9/26/15
    LIVEFOOTSTEPS.ORG/USER/?USR=435
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

    But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

    And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.
    Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.
    Why the hell would we do that?

    As long as we are free, military service always should be (and always should have been) voluntary.

    Since it looks like I'll sit out the presidential election for the third time in a row, it doesn't much matter how I vote, but when I vote, I do consider whether the candidate has any military experience.
    I think we would hear less of the drumbeat for war and armed conflict that way from congress and other quarters.
    Absolutely disagree! The biggest hawks are all veterans, McCain being the perfect example.
    Military people want military expansion, that expansion has to be justified somehow.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,954
    rgambs said:

    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

    But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

    And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.
    Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.
    Why the hell would we do that?

    As long as we are free, military service always should be (and always should have been) voluntary.

    Since it looks like I'll sit out the presidential election for the third time in a row, it doesn't much matter how I vote, but when I vote, I do consider whether the candidate has any military experience.
    I think we would hear less of the drumbeat for war and armed conflict that way from congress and other quarters.
    Absolutely disagree! The biggest hawks are all veterans, McCain being the perfect example.
    Military people want military expansion, that expansion has to be justified somehow.
    I would agree. American needs to back the fuck off in military terms IMO. I think the office needs more of an intellectual, not a military strategist.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    PJ_Soul said:

    rgambs said:

    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

    But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

    And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.
    Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.
    Why the hell would we do that?

    As long as we are free, military service always should be (and always should have been) voluntary.

    Since it looks like I'll sit out the presidential election for the third time in a row, it doesn't much matter how I vote, but when I vote, I do consider whether the candidate has any military experience.
    I think we would hear less of the drumbeat for war and armed conflict that way from congress and other quarters.
    Absolutely disagree! The biggest hawks are all veterans, McCain being the perfect example.
    Military people want military expansion, that expansion has to be justified somehow.
    I would agree. American needs to back the fuck off in military terms IMO. I think the office needs more of an intellectual, not a military strategist.
    easy to say while your enjoying the freedoms having a strong military sustains.
    do you really think that we would be safe without a strong military ? maybe if we did "back the fuck off" our military spending and support we wouldn't have to help all these people that ask for support then shit on us, do you mean intellectual...like Obama ? hahahhahahhahaha or for that matter any of the current white house players...come to think of it those fools wouldn't be shit without a strong military to back their panzy ass's up.

    Godfather.

  • dankinddankind Posts: 20,839

    PJ_Soul said:

    rgambs said:

    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

    But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

    And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.
    Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.
    Why the hell would we do that?

    As long as we are free, military service always should be (and always should have been) voluntary.

    Since it looks like I'll sit out the presidential election for the third time in a row, it doesn't much matter how I vote, but when I vote, I do consider whether the candidate has any military experience.
    I think we would hear less of the drumbeat for war and armed conflict that way from congress and other quarters.
    Absolutely disagree! The biggest hawks are all veterans, McCain being the perfect example.
    Military people want military expansion, that expansion has to be justified somehow.
    I would agree. American needs to back the fuck off in military terms IMO. I think the office needs more of an intellectual, not a military strategist.
    easy to say while your enjoying the freedoms having a strong military sustains.
    do you really think that we would be safe without a strong military ? maybe if we did "back the fuck off" our military spending and support we wouldn't have to help all these people that ask for support then shit on us, do you mean intellectual...like Obama ? hahahhahahhahaha or for that matter any of the current white house players...come to think of it those fools wouldn't be shit without a strong military to back their panzy ass's up.

    Godfather.

    She's Canadian. And while Canada does have a much stronger military than one would expect (not a slight; y'all just seem so nice is all), I would venture that Canadians enjoy their freedoms and feel safe namely because they've left the rest of the fucking world alone.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • I don't see how Obama is any less of an actor than Arnold. He was anointed well before he had any, you know, actual political experience. Reagan had far more experience than he did.

    I don't quite get your point unless you're actually taking the Lohan and Kardashian-Wests as anything more than publicity whores.
    Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    edited October 2015
    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    OK guys, let me throw this one at you- what about making volunteering for Peace Corps or Oxfam or Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) or 350.org or any other well run organization that promotes peace and/or helps restore ecosystems reestablish better natural balances- make that a prerequisite for running for office. Imagine the United States being the country know for being engaged in promoting peace and healing the planet? I would vote for that. Would you?
    Post edited by brianlux on
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    I'd be happy with the US even being A country known for that. And to be fair, its/our citizens do try. Some corporations and companies too.

    I don't really have mandates; have always tended to go by my instinct, and their history. And as much of their character I can perceive.

    PS - may want to change the spelling of Corps ;)
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,038
    ^^^ LOL! Spelling is defernately not my strong suite, :lol:
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    brianlux said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    OK guys, let me throw this one at you- what about making volunteering for Peace Corps or Oxfam or Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) or 350.org or any other well run organization that promotes peace and/or helps restore ecosystems reestablish better natural balances- make that a prerequisite for running for office. Imagine the United States being the country know for being engaged in promoting peace and healing the planet? I would vote for that. Would you?
    Brian for president !

    Godfather.

  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    dankind said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    rgambs said:

    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    mickeyrat said:

    dankind said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    disagree. he has enough people surrounding him with military experience. a leader doesn't need to know how everything works, he just needs to trust those he surrounds himself with do.

    But having military experience gives one a common language with the four-star generals in the room, and it gains one their respect. There's enough divisiveness in U.S. government; this is one step toward bridging a specific divide.

    And, hey, maybe some experience would lead one to NOT kill innocent American children overseas with drone strikes. Or bomb an MSF hospital into oblivion.
    Then reinstitute the draft. With no exemption and/or have compulsory service.
    Why the hell would we do that?

    As long as we are free, military service always should be (and always should have been) voluntary.

    Since it looks like I'll sit out the presidential election for the third time in a row, it doesn't much matter how I vote, but when I vote, I do consider whether the candidate has any military experience.
    I think we would hear less of the drumbeat for war and armed conflict that way from congress and other quarters.
    Absolutely disagree! The biggest hawks are all veterans, McCain being the perfect example.
    Military people want military expansion, that expansion has to be justified somehow.
    I would agree. American needs to back the fuck off in military terms IMO. I think the office needs more of an intellectual, not a military strategist.
    easy to say while your enjoying the freedoms having a strong military sustains.
    do you really think that we would be safe without a strong military ? maybe if we did "back the fuck off" our military spending and support we wouldn't have to help all these people that ask for support then shit on us, do you mean intellectual...like Obama ? hahahhahahhahaha or for that matter any of the current white house players...come to think of it those fools wouldn't be shit without a strong military to back their panzy ass's up.

    Godfather.

    She's Canadian. And while Canada does have a much stronger military than one would expect (not a slight; y'all just seem so nice is all), I would venture that Canadians enjoy their freedoms and feel safe namely because they've left the rest of the fucking world alone.
    they get their fair share of crap too, but what little I know of Canada I'd have to agree.

    Godfather.

  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    edited October 2015
    brianlux said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    OK guys, let me throw this one at you- what about making volunteering for Peace Corps or Oxfam or Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) or 350.org or any other well run organization that promotes peace and/or helps restore ecosystems reestablish better natural balances- make that a prerequisite for running for office. Imagine the United States being the country know for being engaged in promoting peace and healing the planet? I would vote for that. Would you?
    Fk that he needs to have been in combat and picked off an evil doer. Have the thirst for blood.

    Had the thought that those that served in military would understand the true costs of going to war. Then listened to McCain and so many members of military and changed my views.
    Post edited by callen on
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    callen said:

    brianlux said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    OK guys, let me throw this one at you- what about making volunteering for Peace Corps or Oxfam or Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) or 350.org or any other well run organization that promotes peace and/or helps restore ecosystems reestablish better natural balances- make that a prerequisite for running for office. Imagine the United States being the country know for being engaged in promoting peace and healing the planet? I would vote for that. Would you?
    Fk that he needs to have been in combat and picked off an evil doer. Have the thirst for blood.

    Had the thought that those that served in military would understand the true costs of going to war. Then listened to McCain and so many members of military and changed my views.
    It is a major mistake to underestimate the amount of brainwashing that occurs during military service.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • dankinddankind Posts: 20,839
    rgambs said:

    callen said:

    brianlux said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    OK guys, let me throw this one at you- what about making volunteering for Peace Corps or Oxfam or Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) or 350.org or any other well run organization that promotes peace and/or helps restore ecosystems reestablish better natural balances- make that a prerequisite for running for office. Imagine the United States being the country know for being engaged in promoting peace and healing the planet? I would vote for that. Would you?
    Fk that he needs to have been in combat and picked off an evil doer. Have the thirst for blood.

    Had the thought that those that served in military would understand the true costs of going to war. Then listened to McCain and so many members of military and changed my views.
    It is a major mistake to underestimate the amount of brainwashing that occurs during military service.
    It is also a major mistake to overestimate the amount of brainwashing that occurs during military service.
    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 13,576
    dankind said:

    rgambs said:

    callen said:

    brianlux said:

    dankind said:

    Hell just froze over! I (sort of) happen to agree with Godfather.

    Since we're a nation that is perpetually militarily engaged, the commander in chief should have some military experience.

    OK guys, let me throw this one at you- what about making volunteering for Peace Corps or Oxfam or Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) or 350.org or any other well run organization that promotes peace and/or helps restore ecosystems reestablish better natural balances- make that a prerequisite for running for office. Imagine the United States being the country know for being engaged in promoting peace and healing the planet? I would vote for that. Would you?
    Fk that he needs to have been in combat and picked off an evil doer. Have the thirst for blood.

    Had the thought that those that served in military would understand the true costs of going to war. Then listened to McCain and so many members of military and changed my views.
    It is a major mistake to underestimate the amount of brainwashing that occurs during military service.
    It is also a major mistake to overestimate the amount of brainwashing that occurs during military service.
    I doubt it has the same detriment to society and the unlucky foreign victims of hawks like McCain.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
Sign In or Register to comment.