requisites for president


Rht4162

New member
in todays unceartain world, does anyone else thing that military experience should be a pre requisite for the office of president? if they are going to control the military they should know something about it, what do you guys think?
 

HK4U

New member
I would just like to see one that first understood the constitution including the bill of rights. One that understands the original intent in which it was written. One that understands that the constitution was written to protect our God given rights not give them to us. A president that then follows the constitution. A president that is not controlled by enemies of our republic, a true patriot. A president that understood why George Washington warned against foreign wars and entanglements with other nations. Does anyone know where we find a man like that today and then how we get him elected from within the two major political parties? Me neither.
 

Rht4162

New member
to tell you the truth your talking to one here, i am still young, and i can tell you are someone i could learn allot from, im a republican, but i believe in what this country was ORIGINALLY founded on. not the corrupt version it has become
 

HK4U

New member
to tell you the truth your talking to one here, i am still young, and i can tell you are someone i could learn allot from, im a republican, but i believe in what this country was ORIGINALLY founded on. not the corrupt version it has become

I believe there are plenty of God fearing Patriots left in this country. Getting them far enough in politics to make a difference is a challenge though. With both our main parties infiltrated and to a great degree controlled by the NWO and most major news media complicent with their agenda it will be very hard. That being said we still have to keep trying and praying. Young men and women like yourself can make a difference.
 
Last edited:

Rht4162

New member
well i am 19, so i got a long time to try, my chosen career path is actually movie producer so im going to be a conservative hollywood person, like the good ole govenator. but if you think of it, the only way for someone like us to get far enough to make a difference is if we are rich. and dont have to get the liberal media to give us coverage which you know they would never do. or have to rely on donations, if we can pay our own way without special intrest groups then we can do something about all of this
 

NDS

New member
...im going to be a conservative hollywood person, like the good ole govenator...


:hilarious: :laugh: :rolleyesb: :rolleyesb: :icon_rolleyes: :nuts::icon_cheesygrin: :eek:hmy: :wacko::bleh: :tongue: :embarrest: :hehe:

By far the best joke of the week!!

rofl2.gif
rofl2.gif
rofl2.gif
rofl2.gif
 

boris

New member
don't laugh

at the boy's dream. john milius directed red dawn. president grant was the one of the worst ever. and he won the civil war.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
at the boy's dream. john milius directed red dawn. president grant was the one of the worst ever. and he won the civil war.
I think he's laughing at the idea that Arnold is a conservative; he's obviously become quite liberal over the years.

IMO the issue of Arnold as a conservative is a bit misrepresented, though. He's sort of a pro-business type of conservative to begin with, not really a "social" type. Also, he's from CA - and most (not all!) California Republicans are a lot different from those in South Carolina, because liberals in CA are really liberal. It sort of skews the whole frame of reference. While he's not my kind of Republican, I think Arnold is basically a good person in character.

in todays unceartain world, does anyone else thing that military experience should be a pre requisite for the office of president? if they are going to control the military they should know something about it, what do you guys think?
Experience shouldn't be a requirement but some level of education and understanding should. They don't need to know intricate details, but they should have a good understanding of the leadership levels and be able to identify basic areas of strategy, tactics and actual hardware. Most of that can be taught, though.
 

HK4U

New member
I think he's laughing at the idea that Arnold is a conservative; he's obviously become quite liberal over the years.

IMO the issue of Arnold as a conservative is a bit misrepresented, though. He's sort of a pro-business type of conservative to begin with, not really a "social" type. Also, he's from CA - and most (not all!) California Republicans are a lot different from those in South Carolina, because liberals in CA are really liberal. It sort of skews the whole frame of reference. While he's not my kind of Republican, I think Arnold is basically a good person in character.


Experience shouldn't be a requirement but some level of education and understanding should. They don't need to know intricate details, but they should have a good understanding of the leadership levels and be able to identify basic areas of strategy, tactics and actual hardware. Most of that can be taught, though.


No supprise the he is not conservative. First of all he is from Hollyweird and second look who he is married to.
 

kwo51

New member
I think they if they all had draft age kids things would be different. Bushs twins on the first humvee in the country.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
I think they if they all had draft age kids things would be different. Bushs twins on the first humvee in the country.
Maybe...or possibly not. We got into a lot of pointless wars when we had the draft (Korea, Vietnam, etc) the same as we do now.

IMO a couple of reforms that we could make to reduce the possibility of the flippant use of the military might be:

  • The President cannot do any more than a very limited military strike in an emergency situation without having Congress authorize spending, and Congress cannot authorize military spending without an actual declaration of war. So...if we plan to invade Iraq, then Congress must issue a declaration of war on Iraq. We're either at war or we're not - there are no gray areas.

  • Impose a "war tax" - pay for the war immediately, instead of running up a debt. People will give a little more thought when they receive a bill from the IRS in the mail demanding that they pay up for their share of the war in Crapistan. If most people got a letter from the IRS every year asking for $250 more for the war in Iraq, we would be organizing carpools to go picket the White House.

  • Be more aggressive about demanding real, objective reasons for going to war. This bullshit about Iraqi freedom and democracy is just a bunch of nebulous idealism and is an insult to our intelligence. Wars are fought for hard, cold reasons - usually resources, land or just balance of power. If we go to war over oil, that might be ok, but I'd rather the government be honest about it rather than making up some ridiculous sob story about WMDs and how happy people will be to vote.
 
Last edited:

HK4U

New member
Maybe...or possibly not. We got into a lot of pointless wars when we had the draft (Korea, Vietnam, etc) the same as we do now.

IMO a couple of reforms that we could make to reduce the possibility of the flippant use of the military might be:

  • The President cannot do any more than a very limited military strike in an emergency situation without having Congress authorize spending, and Congress cannot authorize military spending without an actual declaration of war. So...if we plan to invade Iraq, then Congress must issue a declaration of war on Iraq. We're either at war or we're not - there are no gray areas.

  • Impose a "war tax" - pay for the war immediately, instead of running up a debt. People will give a little more thought when they receive a bill from the IRS in the mail demanding that they pay up for their share of the war in Crapistan. If most people got a letter from the IRS every year asking for $250 more for the war in Iraq, we would be organizing carpools to go picket the White House.

  • Be more aggressive about demanding real, objective reasons for going to war. This bullshit about Iraqi freedom and democracy is just a bunch of nebulous idealism and is an insult to our intelligence. Wars are fought for hard, cold reasons - usually resources, land or just balance of power. If we go to war over oil, that might be ok, but I'd rather the government be honest about it rather than making up some ridiculous sob story about WMDs and how happy people will be to vote.



Or presidents continually circumvent the constitution. We don't have wars. We have "police actions" so congress does not have to vote. I mean what does our constitution mean to our burocrates? Also if a president can't get a bill passed in congress he will just make a Presidential Directive or Executive Order and usurp the power of the legislative branch of government.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
Or presidents continually circumvent the constitution. We don't have wars. We have "police actions" so congress does not have to vote. I mean what does our constitution mean to our burocrates? Also if a president can't get a bill passed in congress he will just make a Presidential Directive or Executive Order and usurp the power of the legislative branch of government.
That's the point. The power to conduct any substantial military action by Presidential order should be taken away. It has been substantially abused at all of our expense, and there's no compelling reason why it should continue to lie in the hands of the Executive branch. Congress needs to more actively stay on top of how the military is used.

Unless we're being attacked directly, or a quick, immediate airstrike is needed somewhere else, there is no legitimate reason why we should have to engage in the use of military force if we're not actually at war with some other country.

Part of what got us into this mess to begin with was the fuzzy logic of, "Well, we're not exactly 'at war' with Iraq...just Saddam Hussein and his government." We need to employ more binary logic from now on.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
I believe that military experience can't hurt, but the Constitution lists the requirements one must meet to seek the office of the presidency:

35 years of age or older;
natural born citizen
must have been a permanent resident of the United States for at least 14 years

Just as all of us cite the Constitution as our CCW law, so too should we cite it to tell us who can or cannot be president. So, while military experience is a plus, one cannot be disqualified due to a lack of it. It's bad enough that RKBA has been legislated away without amending the Constitution, but we all agree that it is wrong and violates the constitution; passing legislation to require military service for presidential candidates would also be unconstitutional. If we want to require prospective presidential candidates to have military service, the only way it can be legally done is to amend the constitution.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,136
Messages
621,673
Members
74,107
Latest member
Clydesdad
Top