Should political office require military service?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should political office require military service?

Posted: 2/10/2002 1:16:32 PM EDT

I think so. Somebody who wants to make or enforce laws at the state or national level should have been willing to have had his ass shot at for his country.

Now, just think about all the useless twits such a requirement would have saved us from.

Posted: 2/10/2002 1:23:45 PM EDT

[#1]

And with no special privileges like Gore had.

Posted: 2/10/2002 1:30:39 PM EDT

[#2]

personally yes it should be a requirment. From a constitutional standpoint no. Any idiot should be allowed to run.

Posted: 2/10/2002 1:37:06 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
personally yes it should be a requirment. From a constitutional standpoint no. Any idiot should be allowed to run.

View Quote

And there you have it.....

Posted: 2/10/2002 1:58:05 PM EDT

[#4]

I find your remarks about ROTC and Reserves/NG
insulting.
I know of know of more than a few reservists and NG'men that are activated right now.Once I
sign and go to basic I will be activated,as it
stands right now.
As for the ROTC comments,do you also object
those that are cadets at a service academy?
I have a few ROTC'ers for friends and would
trust some of them before I would a few active
duty people I know.
Also not everyone can qualify.I know of just as
many people that failed the physical because of asthma,flatfeet,allergies,heck even severe acne
than that have passed.
Should these people be looked down upon because
they are not able to be in the military?

Please think before you post,someone in uniform
still swore the same oath as you(if you have
ever served)even if they only train part time.

Posted: 2/10/2002 2:03:57 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
personally yes it should be a requirment. From a constitutional standpoint no. Any idiot should be allowed to run.

View Quote

Not to mention that we could risk missing out on some incredibly gifted minds who happen to be paralyzed.

Think Stephen Hawking.

Posted: 2/10/2002 2:04:51 PM EDT

[#6]

I'm in the Alaska Air National Guard. I'm in the 210th Combat Rescue Squadron. We've got a 24/7 commitment and are the best rescue unit in the world. Ask any PJ what unit gets the most Action. As I type a reply to this post my squadron is over in Kuwait in support of Operation Southern Watch. Everyone knocks the Guard and Reserve until they see us replacing them in a shit hole like that. I spent 4 years in Active duty at Elmendorf AFB and would never go back to active duty. It's a freakin' JOKE!!!

Posted: 2/10/2002 2:27:49 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
personally yes it should be a requirment. From a constitutional standpoint no. Any idiot should be allowed to run.

View Quote

Not to mention that we could risk missing out on some incredibly gifted minds who happen to be paralyzed.

Think Stephen Hawking.

View Quote

*everyone* can serve, some can be front lines, other can be support, Stephen Hawking could serve this country well, if given a chance.

We would have to rethink what being in the armed services is all about.

Posted: 2/10/2002 2:38:41 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
personally yes it should be a requirment. From a constitutional standpoint no. Any idiot should be allowed to run.

View Quote

From a constitutional standpoint,any idiot should be allowed to own any weapon of their choosing.

I choose a G-36. Whataya mean I can't have it?

Posted: 2/10/2002 2:47:08 PM EDT

[#9]

Let me apologize and retract the ROTC/reserves comment. That was ill conceived. Sorry.

I was trying to express my distaste for those that get strings pulled to stay out of service or conflicts-- a senator's son for example. I'm sure it has happened.

Posted: 2/10/2002 3:05:52 PM EDT

[#10]

For a real interesting discussion on the topic you raised go read "Starship Trooper" by Robert A. Heinlein. There was a movie about the book a couple of years ago but it does not give justice to the idea RAH raised.

In the future world you had to serve in federal service in order to vote. The main hero of the book choose Mobile Infantry because he not all that good in math. The idea being that those who have sacrificed are best suited to look after the common good of the people.

Very interesting idea but it does not fit into our constitution.

Posted: 2/10/2002 3:15:50 PM EDT

[#11]

"Starship Trooper" is one of my favorites. Must have read it a dozen times since I was a kid. The movie, unfortunately, was an unmitigated piece of crap.

Posted: 2/10/2002 3:26:01 PM EDT

[#12]

I don't think Military service per se, But I do think that some form of public service should be required. I know the constitution does not require it, but if given the choice I usually vote for those with a public service background.

Posted: 2/10/2002 3:37:54 PM EDT

[#13]

Steven Hawking is from England, FYI.

Posted: 2/10/2002 4:01:24 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Steven Hawking is from England, FYI.

View Quote

The fact that he left the UK and came here just shows how smart he really is [:D]

Posted: 2/10/2002 4:05:45 PM EDT

[#15]

Excellent trade for us: Stephen Hawking for Sylvester Stallone.

Posted: 2/10/2002 4:11:21 PM EDT

[#16]

... Ha! Absolutely not.

Posted: 2/10/2002 4:17:01 PM EDT

[#17]

I agree that they should have served in the U.S military if they are going to hold public office. I also think that inorder to vote that one should either have served in the military or own property and pay taxes, in the area where you cast your vote. If you are living on the public dole, then you should not have the right to vote. This would destroy the stinking democrats, since much of their support base is made up of welfare free loaders.

7th

Posted: 2/10/2002 4:42:35 PM EDT

[#18]

Since they all end up waterboys for the CFR, I don't think it much matters.

Posted: 2/10/2002 4:52:02 PM EDT

[#19]

No. While military service is a very desirable contribution, some worthwhile individuals who may be otherwise disqualified from the service can be useful.

Posted: 2/11/2002 6:38:47 AM EDT

[#20]

doorgunner wrote:

As I type a reply to this post my squadron is over in Kuwait in support of Operation Southern Watch. Everyone knocks the Guard and Reserve until they see us replacing them in a shit hole like that. I spent 4 years in Active duty at Elmendorf AFB and would never go back to active duty. It's a freakin' JOKE!!!

View Quote

I thought we didn't have any troops in Kuwait?? Hmmm, That is interesting??

But yes people of politics especially running at the federal level should definately have served in a front line unit.

Benjamin

Posted: 2/11/2002 8:48:29 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
I don't think Military service per se, But I do think that some form of public service should be required. I know the constitution does not require it, but if given the choice I usually vote for those with a public service background.

View Quote

just what is running and serving in a PUBLIC office, if not a form of public service?

you people sicken me. first you tell me that i can't serve in the military (and i agree, i'm just making a point here), then you tell me that i can't serve the public and hold office unless i've served in the military.

what a bunch of bullshit. let's turn this around. i'm sure there are a bunch of people who served in the military that would make really awful public servants. hmmmmm. Gore comes to mind.

this post also begs the question: do you think that the only people who would put or have put their lives on the line for this country wear a uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces? or that the only ones who wear the uniform are true patriots? are you that stupid? i think some of the people who have served this country in the armed forces have an inflated view of themselves as a the country's savior in times of need. get over it. you're playing but one role in many that is necessary for preserving this country.

simply being in the armed forces doesn't make a person qualified to run for office. and i can't believe that there are some who are so narrowminded in their beliefs to think that such a limitation would be a good thing.

i guess small minds are required...got to make room for those big egos. [rolleyes]

Posted: 2/11/2002 8:54:09 AM EDT

[#22]

Of course not.

Posted: 2/11/2002 9:05:04 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
The idea being that those who have sacrificed are best suited to look after the common good of the people.

View Quote

Actually, that was only half the reason:

"Superficially, our system is only slightly different; we have democracy unlimited by race, color, creed, birth, wealth, sex, or conviction, and anyone may win sovereign power by a usually short and not too arduous term of service -- nothing more than a light workout to our cave-man ancestors. But that slight difference is one between a system that works, since it is constructed to match the facts, and one that is inherently unstable. Since sovereign franchise is the ultimate in human authority, we insure that all who wield it accept the ultimate in social responsibility -- we require each person who wishes to exert control over the state to wager his own life -- and lose it, if need be -- to save the life of the state. The maximum responsibility a human can accept is thus equated to the ultimate authority a human can exert. Yin and yang, perfect and equal."

The Major added, "Can anyone define why there has never been revolution against our system? Despite the fact that every government in history has had such? Despite the notorious fact that complaints are loud and unceasing?"

One of the older cadets took a crack at it. "Sir, revolution is impossible."

"Yes. But why?"

"Because revolution -- armed uprising -- requires not only dissatisfaction but aggressiveness. A revolutionist has to be willing to fight and die -- or he's just a parlor pink. If you separate out the aggressive ones and make them the sheep dogs, the sheep will never give you trouble."

"Nicely put! Analogy is always suspect, but that one is close to the facts. Bring me a mathematical proof tomorrow.

View Quote

Great book. [:)]

Posted: 2/11/2002 9:13:51 AM EDT

[#24]

No, because not all people who are good at leading are ex-military. How many people currently enter the military today? and that is how many people who would be eligible. Even without this requirement, there are many offices with only one candidate.

Posted: 2/11/2002 9:38:13 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I don't think Military service per se, But I do think that some form of public service should be required. I know the constitution does not require it, but if given the choice I usually vote for those with a public service background.

View Quote

just what is running and serving in a PUBLIC office, if not a form of public service?

you people sicken me. first you tell me that i can't serve in the military (and i agree, i'm just making a point here), then you tell me that i can't serve the public and hold office unless i've served in the military.

what a bunch of bullshit. let's turn this around. i'm sure there are a bunch of people who served in the military that would make really awful public servants. hmmmmm. Gore comes to mind.

this post also begs the question: do you think that the only people who would put or have put their lives on the line for this country wear a uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces? or that the only ones who wear the uniform are true patriots? are you that stupid? i think some of the people who have served this country in the armed forces have an inflated view of themselves as a the country's savior in times of need. get over it. you're playing but one role in many that is necessary for preserving this country.

simply being in the armed forces doesn't make a person qualified to run for office. and i can't believe that there are some who are so narrowminded in their beliefs to think that such a limitation would be a good thing.

i guess small minds are required...got to make room for those big egos. [rolleyes]

View Quote

well put. Some of these people bitch enough about kids joining the military for the college incentives and then turning CO, now they want even more people to join something for ulterior gains?

Posted: 2/11/2002 10:01:09 AM EDT

[#26]

while appealing on the face of it, no. this looks to me like yet another ploy to disenfranchise those you dont like. heinlien wrote some great scifi, but it's only scifi, not the constitution.
how about this: only ex-military can bear arms. like it?

Posted: 2/11/2002 10:02:44 AM EDT

[#27]

A good idea in theory. In practice, it would never work. Everyone with political ambitions would be joining the military for the wrong reasons.

You already have a way to enforce this requirement - go out and vote!