Fifty things you didn't know about John McCain

[AlphaFrog]

Most = more than half = majority.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Most = more than half = majority.

semantics...


here is a shovel.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

semantics...

Seid, the thing is dude, you're running a semantic/rhetorical argument ("his experience doesn't matter to me because it was in the past" while drawing a distinction with later experiences), so getting the semantics correct is important, because otherwise it deteriorates into quibbling, like in so many other threads.

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I'm not suggesting the president's "Commander in Chief" title be removed. He/she can still be Commander in Chief and seek the professional counsel of people with much experience below him/her. Any good CEO or boss does the same. A good president also has humility.

Oh, silly me, adding in "she" and "her"...our founding fathers never expected a woman to be a serious contender for president, either! Tell me, what happens one day if a woman is a party's chosen candidate for president - though women can be in the military, they officially cannot be in combat (say what you will about women being on the front lines right now - they're not supposed to be, and the military is taking actions to correct that). Because I don't think simple military service is enough to the people who talk it up as a "must" - I think what they're really looking for is combat experience. Will military service then become a moot point, or will it become yet another reason why some people don't want a female president?

I don't think anyone is saying military service is a prerequisite - just that, as part of the job, it is potentially useful due to the many and varied (and sometimes contentious) interactions between government (and specifically the Executive Branch) and the military (if not the military/industrial "complex"). It's another piece to consider, for many people, when examining the potential pros of a candidate - and certainly more specific and universal than claiming that "a good President also has humility," which is certainly arguable and 100% unprovable as an assertion.

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

ETA: By the way, the President has many duties required of him/her in the Constitution, not just commander of the military. He/she is also Head of State and has the power to meet and form treaties with the heads of other nations, among other duties specified such as appointing other heads in the govt. and judges, and giving a state of the union address "from time to time."

Right - this is why we simply don't elect the highest-ranking general every four years. Additionally, this is why we don't elect the highest-ranking diplomat, the head of HUD, or Tom Hanks (who certainly seems like a worthy and talented man on the whole).

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Seid, the thing is dude, you're running a semantic/rhetorical argument ("his experience doesn't matter to me because it was in the past" while drawing a distinction with later experiences), so getting the semantics correct is important, because otherwise it deteriorates into quibbling, like in so many other threads.

Agreed...and I would LOVE to stay on point without people picking over the tiny shyte!

[preciousjeni]

McCain is 72 years old????????????????????? I knew he was old, but I didn't realize he was that old.

Anyway, three of those fifty things stuck out to me:

22. His captors continued beating McCain in the hospital, coercing his ship and squadron name, and their intended bombing target. When pushed to give the names of his squadron members, he gave the names of the National Football League's Green Bay Packer's offensive line.

30. To this day, McCain cannot lift his arms over his head from the injuries sustained during this period.

32. On one of these occasions, a sympathetic prison guard secretly loosened McCain's rope bindings for the night. Months later, on Christmas Day, this same guard secretly drew a cross in the dirt next to McCain. McCain often relates this story as a testimony to his faith and humanity.

All of that is pretty awesome.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't think anyone is saying military service is a prerequisite - just that, as part of the job, it is potentially useful due to the many and varied (and sometimes contentious) interactions between government (and specifically the Executive Branch) and the military (if not the military/industrial "complex"). It's another piece to consider, for many people, when examining the potential pros of a candidate - and certainly more specific and universal than claiming that "a good President also has humility," which is certainly arguable and 100% unprovable as an assertion.

Agreed that it's potentially useful, which is why I said I appreciated McCain's knowledge through experience. But it's just a piece of the puzzle.

And in my mind a good president would have humility. I'm not sure why you think that military experience is more universal than humility, which really every human being should apply to everyday living, imho.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

And in my mind a good president would have humility. I'm not sure why you think that military experience is more universal than humility, which really every human being should apply to everyday living, imho.

I don't want to continue too much of a derailment here, but my point is merely that there are concrete and well-defined aspects of the job where military history would be an advantage.

Humility is a nice attribute that most people respect, but we can't really give the same concrete and well-defined aspects of the Presidency that would always benefit from humility - only areas where, in our opinion, this would happen. Whether or not I agree with that opinion (I agree on a pretty limited basis), it seems clear - it's almost quantitative versus qualitative. No offense intended, just pointing out the differing nature.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't want to continue too much of a derailment here, but my point is merely that there are concrete and well-defined aspects of the job where military history would be an advantage.

Humility is a nice attribute that most people respect, but we can't really give the same concrete and well-defined aspects of the Presidency that would always benefit from humility - only areas where, in our opinion, this would happen. Whether or not I agree with that opinion (I agree on a pretty limited basis), it seems clear - it's almost quantitative versus qualitative. No offense intended, just pointing out the differing nature.

I do not mean to pick on you at all in any way KSig RC just your posting was a good place for me to ask you and others the following question:
How many of our past Presidents have been professional military?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*
*
*
*
*

*
Six (6):Washington, Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower.
From http://fs6.depauw.edu:50080/~jkochan...ident/all.html

As for the rest,check out List of United States Presidents by military service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...litary_service
By Rank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._military_rank

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by jon1856

I do not mean to pick on you at all in any way KSig RC just your posting was a good place for me to ask you and others the following question:
How many of our past Presidents have been professional military?

31.

Additionally:
Taft Sec War under Theodore Roosevelt.
FDR - Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Non uniformed military serving as POTUS during war time,
Wilson WWI
FDR WWII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._military_rank