Leftwing, show me your Proof of what your saying. Now, I realize it is an opinion, but, your party always wants proof. Please provide.
5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Animal- I might have known you'd go off the deep end. I guess you're right, once a person has donned the uniform they are chastened, pure and forever honorable. No chance for corruption, no possibility for the abuse of power, the perfect leader. That ought to be the litmus test for all future leaders of the country. Yep, you betcha.
Ok. Where in my comment did I say that... "Someone who is willing to give his life for our country is wrong!" your words. Where? We were talking about your idea to LIMIT the job of Pres. to someone who has served in the military, but you take my comment to imply that I would disqualify those who have served. Where is your reasoning power? And where do you come off calling a man who received more than 50% of the electorates votes TWICE, a "wannabe DICTATOR"? Eisenhower was the last Pres. to do that!! You sound like Lorrexx reborn.
If you don't think too good, don't think too much!!!!!
1 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
So would most be 4F because of obesity? It would be nice if any would feel an obligation for some time in service to the country-whether it be defense or some area in research--education ect. If your number is up --your it--like person of interest. No exemptions--Exist with poverty income guidlines for an awakening.
6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
RAJII: Youv'e got to be kidding!!! You think having someone who has had training in disapline under pressure and experience in protecting our rights and freedoms from oppression is going to create an empire? Someone who is willing to give his life for our country is wrong! Look around we have an anti military,cowardly,all for me and mine no matter what the cost, just like you want and what have we got? A wanna be DICTATOR!!!
10 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Requiring the President to have served in the armed forces - Animal - would pretty much complete the militarization of the USA. No thanks, no way, no how. Never, ever, do that. Could judging a candidate by his foreign conquests be far behind? Can you say Empire?
5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
WA: I can,t possibly see what any sensible person could possibly have against voter reg. I have show my ID ever where, to pay a restaurant check, to enter public gatherings where so called important people attend,to cash a five dollar check, and on and on. Yet something as important as voteing for our leaders, you have a problem with showing an ID?????
10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
It should stay! And I agree is women want to be equals they should also have to reg. The numbers of military personal should be greatly increased, and they should be trained and treated as we were 40 years ago! They shouldn,t be driving up and down the streets at 4:00 in the afternoon!!! Also I don,t believe anyone man or woman should be even considered for commander in chief unless they served in the military!
8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Well you republicans want voter registration here is a way to do both!
5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
According to the DoD (Department of Defense) we are meeting or exceeding our requirements in every branch of the Military. Maybe we could save some money by dropping the program if it's not needed any more.
3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
It is time to revamp the selective service to require the women when 18 to also register for the draft.
7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
If we don't need it let it go.
301 4th St SE , Minot, ND 58703 | 701-857-1900