HeloDude

Dude, just stop... https://etc.usf.edu/clippix/picture/headstones-at-arlington-national-cemetery.html

You obviously have never been to Arlington...

Why does POTUS comment on some teenager's deaths and not others? He's the President and he's a politician, no different than his predecesors--he decides what he personally wants to comment on, what events he does and does not want to attend, etc. His advisors and staff work for him, but in the end what he says/doesn't say and does/doesn't do is up to him. I personally don't have a problem with the President not going to the funeral, it's his choice. But as for the remark of "Why does the death of an O-8 result in expected POTUS attendance, but an E-8 doesn't?"...(assuming that someone thinks the Major General deserves it) it has to do with the same reason of why a base makes a big deal when an O-8 visits vs when an E-8 visits. And why the service chiefs get a front row seat at the State of the Union while at the same time the top E's do not. Rank has its privileges, even when you're dead.

I'm curious to find the cost difference between training an officer via ROTC vs OTS. The quick google search had old data, and usually assumes an ROTC cadet is on scholarship. I would argue that if all cadets were on non-scholarship, that ROTC might be not too far from the cost of OTS. Either way, being able to observe a cadet for 3-5 years before deciding whether or not to commission them, give them a pilot slot, etc is probably a better overall indicator of initial/future performance in the Air Force vs just the application process (where OTS applicants learn what job they will get) and the 12 week course of training/deciding whether or not to commission a cadet (this part might be as good as ROTC?). As for costs, the bigger Dets can train a cadet cheaper than the smaller Dets since the cadre and facilities are present in both, regardless of how many get commissioned. With the recent cuts, has anyone heard of smaller Dets being shut down? But I agree, the service academies are not a good value compared to the alternatives. It's an interesting debate, and probably better on another thread (I'm sure this has been argued in another thread but I'm too lazy to check).

I'm not exactly sure if your post was in response my direct questions I asked you...because if it was, you didn't answer any of my questions. Or should I just assume your belief is that the military should always do whatever the President wants, no questions asked...and that the military should never step in and stop something from occurring in the US (ie Japanese interment camps) if the President doesn't order the military to do so? If so, then I'll ask again: Why then doesn't the federal government change the military officer's oath to reflect only Article 2, Section 2 of The Constitution and we all take an oath to the obey all orders that comes from the office of the Presidency? It wouldn't be too far from what other militaries do...correct me if I'm wrong, but British offers take an oath of loyalty to the crown, right? Believe it or not, my questions have nothing to do with our current President. I could have raised these questions with any other administration over the last 100-200 years--these are foundational questions. So yes, I most certainly can separate personal views from reality (for example, I recently said in another thread that I believe the federal income tax to be theft and I very much dislike it, however, it is very Constitutional so I would never say so otherwise). So to relate this all to this current thread disucssion--as for the President attacking Iraq right now, well, if we can assume that the Iraq War Authorization from 2002 is still valid (I'm pretty sure it still is?), then Constitutionally I have no problems with the President doing so, regardless of my personal opinion of whether it's a good or bad idea (I would like to see Congress actually 'declaring war', but I suppose the war authorization act was essentially the same thing). Do I have a problem with the President purposely not enforcing immigration laws via executive order even though the law requires it, yes, I have a problem with this because I believe it goes against Article 2, Section 3. Sorry to disappoint you, Prozac, but for me, this specific issue has nothing to do with politics because I could have raised the same issues 8 years ago...and unfortunately will probably be able to raise in 3, 11, 19 years. Oh, and just in case you're wondering, I'm also against the NSA stealing my emails without a warrant from a Judge, thank you Bush administration for giving us the horrible 'Patriot Act'.

Sabato's Crystal Ball has her race as a 'toss up'--given the climate of the current state of politics/midterm election, I would be willing to bet she beats Barber this time around. She'll probably a GOP-establishment type politician, like another McCain or Lyndsey Graham. Oh well, I don't live/vote in the district.

I wasn't commenting on your back and forth with USAFpilot...I was just asking some questions of my own, specifically in regards to Prozac's comment. I don't know why you replied to my comment if you weren't going to address what I asked.

Just curious, is there any time you could think of where our military (via the top General/Flag Officers to the rest of the force?) should/would go against what the President was ordering us to do? Or is there a time where our military should step in and stop the President from doing something...and then possibly overthrow him/her? If yes, then please provide a couple of examples of where this would be possible. Now if the answer is no, then my next question would then be why don't military officers just take an oath to support the current President and execute his/her orders? I mean, that's kind of what the military does, right? Since the 1880's, I'm not aware of the military (from the top down) ever going against whatever the President has ordered...is this because the President was 'preserving, protecting, and defending The Constitution' 100% of the time? I have a feeling the American citizens who were put against their will (without due process) into camps (all because of their Japanese ancestry) didn't believe that the President was 'preserving, protecting, and defending The Constitution' at that time. So should someone have stepped in? If so, who should have done it? Or does it just come down to what 5 people in black robes says is Constitutional? I was taught way back in the day that what made our military different than many others in the word/history is that we don't take an oath to support a specific person, that we didn't take an oath to support a specific government office, that we didn't take an oath to support a certain piece of land...that we took an oath to support and defend The Constitution. But if what we're really doing is just supporting and defending the part of the Constitution that says the President is in charge no matter what he/she orders at the time, then we should probably just be honest and say that's what we support and that the rest of The Constitution is just meh. This discussion probably should be moved to a different/its own thread.

Thank you for the laughs and heartfelt moments over the years...and most importantly, thank you for going above and beyond by traveling to war zones and providing relief for our service men and women. May you find rest and peace and many condolences to your family. Class...

So how much do you anticipate it weighing when complete?

His dropping out wasn't to save the Dem seat for MT...the seat is expected to flip regardless due to it being a midterm election, an unpopular President (especially in MT), and an already more 'red' State--unless of course the Libertarian candidate proves to be a spoiler. Rather, he dropped out of the race because it was a negative distraction to the Dem party, even if only a smaller one. Everybody remember Akins in MO and his 'legitimate rape' comment...it not only hurt himself, but it hurt his GOP party because the Dems effectivly used it to further their 'war on women' argument.

Let's be honest...this doesn't really bring a more positive light to the situation in Afghanistan, and the President isn't doing well politically, so why would he want to highlight more bad things? Keep in mind the President went to a Vegas fundraiser the day after learning his Ambassador was assassinated and then continued to blame it on a youtube video for a couple weeks later even though they knew it had noting to do with a video. Unfortunately I'm not shocked about the Major General being killed and I'm even less shocked that there wasn't a direct response from the President, at least not yet. I had hoped he would have had us out of there by now, but that's what 'hope and change' gives you. For all the guys and gals still over there, please stay safe and come home soon.

Army 2-Star killed by Afgan Solidier. All I can say it WTF...sadly, I'm not shocked. RIP sir. https://nytimes.com/2014/08/06/world/asia/afghanistan-attack.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1&referrer=

There is clearly a 'War Against the Deaf' when it comes to the Air Force. I'm very glad to see these proposed changes, you know, because of equality and fairness.

Freedom and liberty is being free from oppression...not from being free of having to feed and clothe yourself, fighting off predators (whether they walk on four or two legs), not from having to pay taxes on items you voluntarily purchase, etc. Being forced into labor (eg military service), and worse, at a wage you didn't agree to, is not being free. As for America being great, it was great when people valued their liberty, and that has been steadily decreasing. You don't need conscription when a 'great people' is willing to voluntarily fight for their liberty. I have read that in the early 1940's after the war had already started, the government wasn't allowing much men to enlist because the draft was going so smoothly and the government thought they could control the accessions better with a draft--which means that many of those who were drafted would have voluntarily enlisted anyways (what happened to one of my grandfathers, the other voluntarily enlisted shortly after Pear Harbor was bombed). Either way, you get what you get. By the way, is there any other job you would like to see people forced into? Medicine? Police? Teachers?

Irreverent--free people with liberty should never be forced by the government to do a certain task. But to answer your question more directly, the Wars would have turned out the way they would have turned out (not necessarily the same way they 'did' in fact turn out). If such a war is so unpopular that you cannot get enough volunteers to sign up for service, or cannot raise sufficient funds via taxes to properly incentivize enough people to volunteer (or fund the logistics for that matter), then do the American people really want to engage in the war? And if a follow up question would be something to the effect of: What if the mainland US was invaded and the volunteer military wasn't large enough to fight off the attack? My answer would be: Is the country, as it currently is, worth having/saving if enough able volunteers will not choose to voluntarily fight to save what we have? My answer to that question would be no. The people is what has made our country great...when the people become more and more 'less great' (as I believe we have been seeing for many decades), then it's no surprise that the country becomes less great. It happened to Rome.

First off, I have the same opinion on jury duty as I do when it comes to military service--it should be voluntary as the government should never be in the business of forcing people to do anything under penalty of law. This being said, after a little research, I could not find how someone could be forced into potential jury duty in the same way as conscription laws in the late 1960's. Take Minnesota, for example: Potential jurors are picked from a State database consisted of a list of registered voters and those who hold a drivers license/State ID card (see links below, and this also serves for how the federal courts in MN choose their jurors). So since you are not forced to register to vote and/or have some sort of a State ID, how can you be forced into jury duty? However, for the draft in the 1960's, all men who were citizens/legal residents between the age of 18-35 were required by law to register. Here is an example of where the difference lies. https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/JuryInfo/juryfaq.shtml https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/04/23/good-question-how-do-you-get-picked-for-jury-duty/

"What in the hell's diversity?"

The income tax is theft, regardless of the 16th Amendment. The FairTax is not, and would be much better for the country.

Messed up, isn't it?

Couldn't agree more.

What's an 'electoral congress'?

Copy. I think it's all pretty awesome...fairly skeptical though to see how it turns out. I have a feeling the Appellate Court will strike it down and it will go to the SCOTUS, which ruled favorably on Heller in 2008. But I don't think this is just conceal carry vs open carry, I think it may include both. And in Vermont (among a few other States) you don't need a permit to CCW.

Update: According to Emily Miller (via Twitter), DC's Chief of Police has ordered her officers to not arrest anyone carrying a firearm who can legally carry one in any State. Now there are 30 States with open-carry witout a permit--does this mean that residents of these States can now open-carry a pistol on their hip in DC? This is getting very interesting... https://mobile.twitter.com/EmilyMiller/status/493572214558851072 https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/dean-weingarten/breaking-dc-police-chief-recognizes-right-to-carry-reciprocity/

Well played, sir.