using deaths of military personal in debates...

[apdst]

What does that argument mean, now, anyway?
"Was he qualified"

Well - even if you didn't think he *was* he sure as hell is now :shrug: He's been president for over a year. . . how things were during the election campaign season isn't really an issue, anymore. Life moved forward.

Still doesn't make him qualified. How long was Louis XVI king of France? Was he, at anytime, qualified?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Still doesn't make him qualified. How long was Louis XVI king of France? Was he, at anytime, qualified?

What, the people voted him in or something?

'King' and 'President' are just soooo polar opposite eachother. That much desired opposition, there, is exactly WHY the president is chosen by the people and why we vote for Representatives and so on - unlike any type of "Royalty" where your birth and bloodline is the main boost into power. . . nevermind your ability to lead, command or maintain some level of sanity, none of that remotely mattered - it was all about who your daddy was and really nothing more.

So - according to their means of 'qualifications' - every King and Queen was qualified upon conception and other political things that stirred the pot before they took the throne. People's opinions meant ****.

It's this exact issue of birth-order and royal-bloodlines that gave the throne to Bloody Mary, Henry the VIII's daughter, and is the reason for the twisted nature of his marriages and all his many wives.

 

[Shewter]

If what I'm getting from your post is true and our marines just joined to kill people and see combat and not because they love their country and want to serve and help they're country and help keep america safe (which I don't think is true at all) then we are in more trouble than I ever thought.

I'm trying to figure out a more respectful way to put this but I'm coming up short, but, if you joined the marines because you wanted to experience killing someone and not "for your country or any of that bull****" then you shouldn't be in the marines.

I'm guessing you don't spend much time around military personnel...

We have alot of Marines that train with us in the Ordnance Corps. They all have that bloodlust that seems to worry you. It's how they're trained. They're broken down, and rebuilt into killing machines who happen to learn a skill other than death as well. They are really the only branch like that, though. In the Army, there are SO many soldiers that the individual rebuilding process isnt nearly the same. We all learn a job and THEN learn to be a soldier.

 

[apdst]

What, the people voted him in or something?

'King' and 'President' are just soooo polar opposite eachother. That much desired opposition, there, is exactly WHY the president is chosen by the people and why we vote for Representatives and so on - unlike any type of "Royalty" where your birth and bloodline is the main boost into power. . . nevermind your ability to lead, command or maintain some level of sanity, none of that remotely mattered - it was all about who your daddy was and really nothing more.

So - according to their means of 'qualifications' - every King and Queen was qualified upon conception and other political things that stirred the pot before they took the throne. People's opinions meant ****.

It's this exact issue of birth-order and royal-bloodlines that gave the throne to Bloody Mary, Henry the VIII's daughter, and is the reason for the twisted nature of his marriages and all his many wives.

I'm sorry, but Obama didn't suddenly become an expert in tactics and stretegy, when he was elected.

At the beginning of the Civil War, volunteer units elected officers; most weren't qualified to lead men on the battlefield.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm sorry, but Obama didn't suddenly become an expert in tactics and stretegy, when he was elected.

At the beginning of the Civil War, volunteer units elected officers; most weren't qualified to lead men on the battlefield.

Is ANYONE an expert in tactics and strategy before they become president? Who is? You can't become an expert in those areas unless you heavily study it or are involved in it - and just because someone 'was there, did that' does NOT mean that htey have a full, deep grasp and understanding of it all.

What about all other aspects of presidency? Obama, being president now, has an equal hand in internatinal relations, education, health care, economics; all these other things as well. Does he have what you might consider 'adequate experience' in these areas? Obviously NO.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have adequate experience in ALL these areas BEFORE anyone becomes President, Senator, Representative - and so on.

Take McCain for example, since he would have been president if Obama had not been elected. He would have satisfied some people's expectations that the President be experienced in some degree in war-time issues. But what about economics? He himself said it was his weak point. What about education issues, taxation . . . and so on? How does he fair, there?

Where they are not versed and experienced it is IDEAL and OK for them to heavily defer their decisions to the advise of others who ARE more experienced. The President isn't just sitting on a throne by himself clacking his staff of justice on the floor - he meets, frequently, with his cabinet and advisers - and his propinquity directs what comes across him each day and how much he knows of it.

 

[apdst]

Is ANYONE an expert in tactics and strategy before they become president? Who is? You can't become an expert in those areas unless you heavily study it or are involved in it - and just because someone 'was there, did that' does NOT mean that htey have a full, deep grasp and understanding of it all.

All but 12 presidents were trained in combat tactics, prior to becoming president. So, the answer is yes. One thing that most of them--Obama excluded--did have, is the ability to lead. In that arena, Obama is a miserable failure.

what about all other aspects of presidency? Obama, being president now, has an equal hand in internatinal relations, education, health care, economics; all these other things as well. Does he have what you might consider 'adequate experience' in these areas? Obviously NO.

Yeah, his diplomatic skills told him that he should give the PM of Great Britain a collection of DVD's. How classy is that?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have adequate experience in ALL these areas BEFORE anyone becomes President, Senator, Representative - and so on.

You're correct, but most folks at least have enough common sense to know what they do and do not know and seek the knowledge to remedy what they do not know. Most folks, except Obama, that is.

Take McCain for example, since he would have been president if Obama had not been elected. He would have satisfied some people's expectations that the President be experienced in some degree in war-time issues. But what about economics? He himself said it was his weak point. What about education issues, taxation . . . and so on? How does he fair, there?

The economy isn't Obama's strong point. That, or he's ****ing things up on purpose. So, either he's a criminal for intentionally sabotaging our economy, or he's just stupid. You choose.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I don't like Obama, either, nor do I agree with most of what he does - but I don't let that cloud my judgment. :shrug:

 

[apdst]

I don't like Obama, either, nor do I agree with most of what he does - but I don't let that cloud my judgment. :shrug:

Then, you can't help but realize he's about as far from being qualified as one can get.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Then, you can't help but realize he's about as far from being qualified as one can get.

Obviously we have a different opinion of what makes a president qualified.
There's the basics - meeting the requirements that ever President must meet as they are defined in the Constitution . . . which he does meet, that's unquestionable (unless you're a conspiracy theorist)
Then there's the extras - which is what varies depending on the situation and nature of everything going on.

Sure, in many ways Obama's under my par and under your par.
But was McCain anymore qualified? What about Palin and Biden? Where I disapprove of Obama - I approve of McCain. Where I disaprove of McCain I approve of Obama. Palin and Biden? I loath them both and see them as both as idiots incapable of cohesive thought and common sense.
So what of those things is more important when it comes ot the presidential back-ground experience that up to par? What of those things holds precident and weight? Not everyone seems to be on the same playing field as far as life experiences goes . . . they have more focused specialty and knowledge over the other, however, and they both bring something different to the entire thing.

We can debate what we consider 'qualification' 'til we're blue in the face and likely we still won't agree because we don't hold the same values and expectations, never have and likely never will.

 

[roughdraft274]

The economy isn't Obama's strong point. That, or he's ****ing things up on purpose. So, either he's a criminal for intentionally sabotaging our economy, or he's just stupid. You choose.

It really was a brilliant plan of his, it's so obvious though.

Just look at those amazing economic numbers all the way right up to his presidency and how much everything tanked afterwards.

He must be doing it on purpose:roll:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It really was a brilliant plan of his, it's so obvious though.

Just look at those amazing economic numbers all the way right up to his presidency and how much everything tanked afterwards.

He must be doing it on purpose:roll:

LOL

If I remember correctly - that's how people tried to paint Bush.

 

[apdst]

It really was a brilliant plan of his, it's so obvious though.

Just look at those amazing economic numbers all the way right up to his presidency and how much everything tanked afterwards.

He must be doing it on purpose:roll:

Everything is tanking. :rofl

How many jobs did he kill with the drilling moratorium? Without a single job to replace them with?

Either he's jackin' up the economy on purpose, or he's just a ****ing idiot. Which is it?

 

[apdst]

Obviously we have a different opinion of what makes a president qualified.
There's the basics - meeting the requirements that ever President must meet as they are defined in the Constitution . . . which he does meet, that's unquestionable (unless you're a conspiracy theorist)
Then there's the extras - which is what varies depending on the situation and nature of everything going on.

Sure, in many ways Obama's under my par and under your par.
But was McCain anymore qualified? What about Palin and Biden? Where I disapprove of Obama - I approve of McCain. Where I disaprove of McCain I approve of Obama. Palin and Biden? I loath them both and see them as both as idiots incapable of cohesive thought and common sense.
So what of those things is more important when it comes ot the presidential back-ground experience that up to par? What of those things holds precident and weight? Not everyone seems to be on the same playing field as far as life experiences goes . . . they have more focused specialty and knowledge over the other, however, and they both bring something different to the entire thing.

We can debate what we consider 'qualification' 'til we're blue in the face and likely we still won't agree because we don't hold the same values and expectations, never have and likely never will.

Obama's pre-requisites to run for the office aren't the same thing as being, "qualified". How many politicos, that have the same pre-reqs, do you feel aren't, "qualified", to become president?

 

[roughdraft274]

Everything is tanking. :rofl

How many jobs did he kill with the drilling moratorium? Without a single job to replace them with?

Either he's jackin' up the economy on purpose, or he's just a ****ing idiot. Which is it?

And everything was tanking right when the baton was handed to him.

Of course you can disagree with his policies but to call him a ****ing idiot or to suggest that's purposefully trying to bring down the economy shows me that you need to turn off the Limbaugh every now and then dude.

The economic numbers aren't as rosy as we'd al have like them to be by now but to say that they're tanking right now is ridiculous. There's a good chance that we're past the hump and onto a recovery.

 

[cpwill]

We have alot of Marines that train with us in the Ordnance Corps. They all have that bloodlust that seems to worry you. It's how they're trained. They're broken down, and rebuilt into killing machines who happen to learn a skill other than death as well. They are really the only branch like that, though. In the Army, there are SO many soldiers that the individual rebuilding process isnt nearly the same. We all learn a job and THEN learn to be a soldier.

:lol: i remember I was once in the standard which-service-is-better debate with an army and a national guard guy. the Army guy pointed out to me (in what he thought was a winning move) that one of the problems with the Marine Corps was that we are "just a combat organization." National Guard guys started nodding in agreement; I was flabergasted.

"what the f--k else are we supposed to be doing!?!"

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Obama's pre-requisites to run for the office aren't the same thing as being, "qualified". How many politicos, that have the same pre-reqs, do you feel aren't, "qualified", to become president?

I'm not going to debate this anymore because we're both firm in our opinions and we won't be changing our thoughts on this issue.

 

[cpwill]

i think ya'lls disconnect point is that one of you is arguing that Obama is 'qualified to be President', and the other is saying 'but he's not qualified to do it well'.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Yes, true - I do agree that he goes right into the '****ty President Bucket' with all the other ****ty presidents.

 

[apdst]

i think ya'lls disconnect point is that one of you is arguing that Obama is 'qualified to be President', and the other is saying 'but he's not qualified to do it well'.

If he can't perform to the proper standard, then he isn't qualified.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

If he can't perform to the proper standard, then he isn't qualified.

Well, you certainly aren't and neither am I . . . that much we can agree on.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

After seeing this happening on this forum a couple of times I’m just going to speak my mind…

Several thousand men and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past 9 years. **** sucks. May they rest in peace, and my condolences go out to their families. But what pisses me off about the whole thing (other than terrorist killing my fellow Americans) is how their deaths are used to justify ending a war.

Being a active duty Marine who is hoping to be able to hop on an upcoming afgan deployment, it’s nothing but a kick in the balls when I hear some little punk bitch collage kid crying about how we are sending marines and soldiers to their death. Shut up. Every Marine I know is wishing they were in Afghanistan getting shot at so they could kill a terrorist. Not for country or any of that bull****… But because they joined to see combat and they want to experience it. You go to an infantry barracks back at Lejeune and I want you to ask everyone there if they want to kill a terrorist. The answer will be yes. I want you to find me a Marine who doesn’t want to see a 500lb JDAM level an insurgent’s position. Or witness a couple LAVs firing their 25mm’s bringing death and destruction to the enemies of this nation. I’m coming up on 3 years now and I haven’t found one.

The fact of the matter is people who join, especially the infantry, want to see combat. For all of the marines that have died do you think they would be insulted to hear that some liberal punk, who doesn’t even know them, used there their death as a tool to somehow get others to feel sympathy for him and his buddies in the name of peace and harmony? F@#$ NO! Stop using the death of marines and soldiers to end a war.

There are reasons to stay and reasons to pullout. It’s debated all over the news, internet, and this very forum. But don’t throw around the deaths of Marines and Soldiers to better your argument of why we should leave Iraq and Afghanistan. If you truly respect those who have lost their lives, don’t do it…

Okay, how about the innocent civilians killed in these wars? Do we count them?