I'll call you unpatriotic if I wish...

[Peachdiane]

Are People Who Attack American Principles Un-American?

Written by J. B. Williams (http://www.chronwatch.com/site_search.asp?auth=226)
Monday, August 14, 2006

In a word, yes!
<o></o>
Living in <st1:country-region><st1></st1></st1:country-region><st1:country-region><st1>America</st1> </st1:country-region>(legally or illegally) does not make one an American. Accepting, adopting, understanding, believing in, living, promoting and defending real American foundational principles, (the American dream), makes one an American. Nothing less will do.
<o></o>
One who works to stop others from smoking can’t be called anything short of anti-smoking. One who works to stop others from owning guns would certainly and appropriately be deemed anti-gun rights, or anti-Second Amendment. If you work to stop abortions, you are certainly anti-abortion and if you work to undermine fundamental American principles, you are obviously anti-American.<o></o>
<o></o>
Does this mean that one must believe in and support all administrations and their agendas or policies? No! Does this mean that one can not openly dissent from federal policies? No! Does this mean that people can’t speak out against the things they do not support? Of course not. Dissenting and speaking out is a very American tradition--as long as that dissent is consistent with foundational American principles and values. But if that dissent is in opposition to American principles or interests however, it is by its nature, anti-American. Those who do it are therefore un-American

Too often today, people get so caught up in politically motivated rhetoric that they miss the real message hidden beneath that rhetoric. They find themselves arguing over the two sides of the same coin. They find themselves supporting power-hungry political parties instead of principled political leaders on individual merits. They also find themselves placing partisan bickering ahead of the nation’s best interests. Then they wonder why their system of self-governance is failing them.

Link (http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=23073&catcode=13)

[Naturalized-Texan]

In today's Democrat Party, patriotism is a dirty word.

[Black Phoenix]

This is why I say, lets make enlistment manadatory for the right to vote. First, by enlisting you prove you actually care where this country is going and are willing to do something for it. Second, patriotism in the military is far higher than normal people. Third, lets just be honest, with the incredible lack of commitment or caring in this country, often less than fifty percent of a state vote anyway. Fourth, it is far better to have disciplined individuals voting, risking those in their ranks that are less intelligent or whatever, than to risk hippies voting.

You don't have to be a grunt, if you want do payroll for all I care, but you do need to join and do something. Leave in four years if you like, or just do National Gaurd, I don't care, but if you want the right to vote, you need to prove that you deserve it.

[gnome]

I'm not sure I'd want things to be that way (military service for the right to vote) but I've always been intrigued by the idea. Have any other countries tried it?

[TechnoPrincess]

I'm not sure I'd want things to be that way (military service for the right to vote) but I've always been intrigued by the idea. Have any other countries tried it?

Israel has mandatory enlistment for all of it's citizens. Most stay in more than their mandatory 3 years also. Having worked with many Israeli citizens, none of them minded serving a bit. It is part of their culture.

[Black Phoenix]

What's really sad is this. I know for a fact you can enter any branch of the military with parental permission, at sixteen or seventeen, again with consent. I know this because two such individuals were present at my physical. Regardless of service, they still cannot vote for one or two more years. Basically we're telling them, thanks, but that their opinion is worth less to us than hippie bums who do nothing but beg for handouts and legalizing of dangerous drugs.

[Rhino]

Israel has mandatory enlistment for all of it's citizens. Most stay in more than their mandatory 3 years also. Having worked with many Israeli citizens, none of them minded serving a bit. It is part of their culture.Change that to "able-bodied" citizens. Switzerland does the same thing.

[Black Phoenix]

http://jewishworldreview.com/strips/mallard/2000/mallard101804.asp

Especially read the last strip.
I do so love that duck!

[Federal Farmer]

This is why I say, lets make enlistment manadatory for the right to vote. First, by enlisting you prove you actually care where this country is going and are willing to do something for it. Second, patriotism in the military is far higher than normal people. Third, lets just be honest, with the incredible lack of commitment or caring in this country, often less than fifty percent of a state vote anyway. Fourth, it is far better to have disciplined individuals voting, risking those in their ranks that are less intelligent or whatever, than to risk hippies voting.

You don't have to be a grunt, if you want do payroll for all I care, but you do need to join and do something. Leave in four years if you like, or just do National Gaurd, I don't care, but if you want the right to vote, you need to prove that you deserve it.
Suffrage has always been tied to property, taxation, hence no taxation without representation; not whether you had served in the military. We'll stick to a voluntary military and leave the total militarization of society to the Kim Jong ils of the world.

[Black Phoenix]

Suffrage has always been tied to property, taxation, hence no taxation without representation; not whether you had served in the military. We'll stick to a voluntary military and leave the total militarization of society to the Kim Jong ils of the world.


Didn't say it wouldn't be voluntary to join, I just think something besides being alive should be expected for the privilage of voting. Also, in all honesty, us none land owners pay taxes and are effected by government desicions as well. To tell the truth, land owners are currently a minority, and no less inclined to corrupt voting desicions than anyone else.

And as far as Kim Jong... are they even allowed to vote over there?

Read your constitution and anwser a question for me:
America was never actually supposed to have a standing army. What was supposed to fill that gap? What would such imply about "total militarization" of the US?

(Oh, BTW, yes, I support having a standing army as a necessary evil, -though I would be in favor of allowing each state to command it's own forces again, that would be ideal- but yes, for the sake of honesty and properly honoring our constitution, COULD WE PLEASE HAVE AN ACTUAL AMENDMENT?!!!)

[ProCon]

In today's Democrat Party, patriotism is a dirty word.
In (cocktail) parties hosted by Democrats it is. However, in the persona today's Democratic Party portrays, "no one dare question (their) patriotism!" They're outspoken in claiming patriotism, while inwardly deriding the concept as the province of rednecks.

[DesertFox]

Mandatory service doesn't by itself mean the total militarization of society, or even the militarization of society.

[d'urville]

The all-volunteer force is doing fine so far.

In (cocktail) parties hosted by Democrats it is. However, in the persona today's Democratic Party portrays, "no one dare question (their) patriotism!" They're outspoken in claiming patriotism, while inwardly deriding the concept as the province of rednecks.

I think they think they're being pre-emptive by always trying to seem outraged at the mere thought of them not being partiotic.

The left always confuses patriotism and jingoism.

[Federal Farmer]

Didn't say it wouldn't be voluntary to join, I just think something besides being alive should be expected for the privilage of voting. Also, in all honesty, us none land owners pay taxes and are effected by government desicions as well. To tell the truth, land owners are currently a minority, and no less inclined to corrupt voting desicions than anyone else.

And as far as Kim Jong... are they even allowed to vote over there?

Read your constitution and anwser a question for me:
America was never actually supposed to have a standing army. What was supposed to fill that gap? What would such imply about "total militarization" of the US?

(Oh, BTW, yes, I support having a standing army as a necessary evil, -though I would be in favor of allowing each state to command it's own forces again, that would be ideal- but yes, for the sake of honesty and properly honoring our constitution, COULD WE PLEASE HAVE AN ACTUAL AMENDMENT?!!!)
If suffrage is tied to military service, then it would not be a voluntary military, but a compelled military as if one wishes to vote, you would then need to serve. Again, if you pay taxes you vote; and unfortunately one need no longer own physical property to be compelled to pay taxes, since Congress long ago decided to help itself to other forms of property, i.e. our income. Our point of agreement might be "something besides being alive" for a voting qualification. I would propose a rigorous test concerning government and the Constitution; but then the test I would consider passing muster would require an education that many do not seem to receive and thus would take most too many years of study to pass. Alas, it would never happen as those too many would cry "disenfranchisement".

You have three choices in North Korean elections: Korean Workers' Party, Korean Workers' Party, or Korean Workers' Party. Put another way, Kim Jong il, Kim Jong il, or Kim Jung il.

By total militarization, and North Korea as example, NK is a regime without the intermediary institutions between the militaristic personality cult of Kim and that of what should be civil society. These are required by a society to keep the military from being a total influence upon it. Given our American civil traditions, permament compulsory military service would very well mean that the US had turned the wrong corner, most likely because between internal strife and external threats, the American society we once knew had been lost. These are the circumstances under which I could see such compulsory service occurring.

[Kathy29]

Patriotisim is called nativisim and it is very bad.
F 'em

[Black Phoenix]

The militia was supposed to fill the gap of the standing army in the country, I.E. everyone in the country was considered a member of the army already. After a while, individual states commanded armies... not sure how that got going, but the Civil War would not have been possible without state run armies. I personally would like to return to a system of strong militia and state armies.

Also, vonlunteer force does not mean there are no perks to joining, it just means we don't threaten you with guns if you choose not to join. Also, military service is not mandatory permanent in this country. Actually, mandatory active service is only four years, with four more non-active... if you so choose to go active, otherwise you can just stay on reserve the entire eight years after boot camp. Also the military and civilian worlds are not separated, therefore, no, it is not logical to assume one is attempting to destroy the other.

[Federal Farmer]

Not certain of what you're trying to say in your last post. My "permanent compulsory military service" is not speaking to someone in America at present who decides to join the military and is then signed up for a mandatory term of service of four years.

On your last sentence, we live in a society where civil institutions rule, not military; should the reverse occur years hence in the scenario I gave, then civilian rule would said to have been destroyed.

[The_Elucidator]

What's really sad is this. I know for a fact you can enter any branch of the military with parental permission, at sixteen or seventeen, again with consent. I know this because two such individuals were present at my physical. Regardless of service, they still cannot vote for one or two more years. Basically we're telling them, thanks, but that their opinion is worth less to us than hippie bums who do nothing but beg for handouts and legalizing of dangerous drugs.

Not the Air Force!

17 as a HS Grad
18 with a GED and even then very, very few.

You can softbook as a Junior but you can't enlist until you are a senior.


As far as making military service mandatory to vote - we would have to factor in those who do not cut the physical fitness or mental fitness that the military requires. Usually Democrats :roar:

[Black Phoenix]

On your last sentence, we live in a society where civil institutions rule, not military; should the reverse occur years hence in the scenario I gave, then civilian rule would said to have been destroyed.

Our military's reliance on civilian insititutions is part of it's success. Without it, we would have to institute the draft, among other things that would go wrong. I highly doubt the military would disolve relationships, if given the chance.

National Gaurd and reserve are both services that are spent mostly as civilians, neither one paying enough to live on. I would say both were good enough to me. This isn't about what you give for your right to vote, it's that you give. Seriously, I am sick of people who honestly hate this country or don't give a rip where it's going, having any say at all. Those kinds of people do not need the right to vote, and I'd be much happier if they didn't.

Also, I would be in favor of militia and state armies being considered part of the armed service, and therefore, by joining one or the other rather than the national army, your service obligation is fulfilled. And NO, Army National Gaurd is NOT a militia nor is it composed of state run armies, it's just the closest thing we have.

As far as making military service mandatory to vote - we would have to factor in those who do not cut the physical fitness or mental fitness that the military requires. Usually Democrats :roar:

Normally I'd agree, but that's not true. I'll go over this again, I have never recieved an injury in my entire life, yet for a car accident in which I only suffered unconsciousness for about five minutes with NO resulting skull or brain damage, nor ligitimate physical injury of any kind, my entry is being delayed. I was told by my recuiter to simply lie about my MINOR attention deficiet disorder, because without really good paper work, that would have completely disqualified me.

This really is stupid since in order to be relieved out once your in, you have to get an actual severe injury or psychological disorder. My recruiter told me 20% of the army has asthma, which will disqualify anyone on the outside, but they just get perscriptions and continue to serve.

Also, for the disabled, from my understanding, especially these days, a very large and important portion of the military never sees combat, actually having desk/computer oriented jobs. Since that is the case, what would be so wrong with a guy in a wheelchair operating some of those computers and filling out some of that paperwork?

If we allowed people with less in the physical department to join where
appropriate, such would not hurt us, and our force's size would no doubt increase rapidly.

(I've been told by most in the service today, just about the only way to get in, is to lie.)
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --><!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[DesertFox]

for the disabled, from my understanding, especially these days, a very large and important portion of the military never sees combat, actually having desk/computer oriented jobs. Since that is the case, what would be so wrong with a guy in a wheelchair operating some of those computers and filling out some of that paperwork? As a civilian, fine. Not as a serviceman/woman, who may have to fight for his/her life regardless of the nature of his/her work. And when that happens, you who can defend yourself and hold up your end of a fight, won't want someone beside you who can't move quickly because he/she is tied to a chair and can't get over rubble; or can't get in a foxhole because he/she is physically disabled.

If we allowed people with less in the physical department to join where appropriate, such would not hurt usI see you're unfamiliar with Pat Schroeder, former Congresscritter from Colorado. Schroeder, too, insisted it wouldn't hurt a thing to have less physically qualified people in this job or that, and next thing you know a jet has crashed because a female pilot who should never have been in the cockpit, got there by such spurious arguments as you're using. Everyone on active service has to be physically able to fight. No exceptions.

and our force's size would no doubt increase rapidly.This is a hope on your part, not something based on actual reasoning and extrapolation. The Army I know from first-hand experience, and all of its jobs that can be civilianized have been civilianized.

[Federal Farmer]

Our military's reliance on civilian insititutions is part of it's success. Without it, we would have to institute the draft, among other things that would go wrong. I highly doubt the military would disolve relationships, if given the chance.<!-- / message --><!-- sig --><!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
The point I'm trying to get across to you is that our military's being under civilian rule is a part of American civil society's success. Another thing you're not understanding, and it should have been deduced when I said, "most likely because between internal strife and external threats, the American society we once knew had been lost" is that it would not be the military that would destroy the rule of law we know in this society; rather the disintegration of society, the moral breakdown, coupled with great loss of confidence in civil institutions and their authority to keep internal order and ward off external threats would lead to the demise of the civil institutions and traditions this country has known. In this scenario, it's more likely that an intellectual sitting in an ivory tower somewhere would be intrigued by opportunity, rather than a military man of common sense, i.e. a Franks or Schwarzkopf.

[Black Phoenix]

The point I'm trying to get across to you is that our military's being under civilian rule is a part of American civil society's success.


The military is not under civilian rule, nor is vise versa the case. Actually, originally there was not supposed to be a difference, the people were the militia, thus the military, I.E. civilian rule of the military wasn't an issue, since the two were the same. I would be in favor of keeping our standing army, however, like I said, strong militias and state armies I would not disrespect either. This country was founded and protected by men taking arms who weren't serving in any army at the time. For them, there was no separation between the military and civilian worlds.


Another thing you're not understanding, and it should have been deduced when I said, "most likely because between internal strife and external threats, the American society we once knew had been lost" is that it would not be the military that would destroy the rule of law we know in this society; rather the disintegration of society, the moral breakdown, coupled with great loss of confidence in civil institutions and their authority to keep internal order and ward off external threats would lead to the demise of the civil institutions and traditions this country has known.


I really don't get where you're going with this. I want the military and the people to basically be the same entity once again, and those whom would rather not participate, they don't have to, but since they've shown no commiment to this country, they therefore don't get a say in how it is run.

In this scenario, it's more likely that an intellectual sitting in an ivory tower somewhere would be intrigued by opportunity, rather than a military man of common sense, i.e. a Franks or Schwarzkopf.

Opportunity to... what? A pointy headed intellectual sitting on an ivory tower content to watch the world go by can sit as long as he wishes, but if he intends to never do his share, we'd all be better off without him having a say in how things are run. He who understands much, but never uses it, is an idiot regaurdless. Those in the military are just as smart and visionary as anyone else. Washington himself was a military man, as well as many other founders of this country. Why are you stereotyping the military?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Rhino]

The military is not under civilian rule, nor is vise versa the case.The military is subordinated to the executive branch, i.e. civilian rule. That's what he meant. It doesn't operate independently without oversight. I don't think you two are understanding each other.

[DesertFox]

BP, our military is very much under "civilian rule." As Rhino points out, it doesn't just do whatever it wants to do. The president, a civilian, is Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense, a civilian, is next in line in the chain of command. Among political scientists, civilian control of the military is considered fundamental to keeping the military out of politics.

Civilian control (or "rule") of the military does not mean that civilians are involved in the minutia of daily operations. However, a civilian is also in control of the logistics of each service branch (as in Secretary of the Army). He has nothing to do with actual war fighting, and isn't part of the chain of command, but is a major actor in logistics.

[Federal Farmer]

The military is not under civilian rule, nor is vise versa the case. Actually, originally there was not supposed to be a difference, the people were the militia, thus the military, I.E. civilian rule of the military wasn't an issue, since the two were the same. I would be in favor of keeping our standing army, however, like I said, strong militias and state armies I would not disrespect either. This country was founded and protected by men taking arms who weren't serving in any army at the time. For them, there was no separation between the military and civilian worlds.
[sigh]

See Rhino and DF's posts.

I really don't get where you're going with this. I want the military and the people to basically be the same entity once again, and those whom would rather not participate, they don't have to, but since they've shown no commiment to this country, they therefore don't get a say in how it is run.
Forget it.

Opportunity to... what? A pointy headed intellectual sitting on an ivory tower content to watch the world go by can sit as long as he wishes, but if he intends to never do his share, we'd all be better off without him having a say in how things are run. He who understands much, but never uses it, is an idiot regaurdless. Those in the military are just as smart and visionary as anyone else. Washington himself was a military man, as well as many other founders of this country. Why are you stereotyping the military?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Study Lenin and the Russian Revolutionary period; then perhaps you'll understand what I'm saying about opportunistic intellectuals and also about the comparison with Franks and Schwarzkopf (to state plainly, I complemented them, not stereotyped).

I'm out.

[Black Phoenix]

The military is subordinated to the executive branch, i.e. civilian rule. That's what he meant. It doesn't operate independently without oversight. I don't think you two are understanding each other.

The military already votes, and the militia and the people are meant to not be separate entities. We were founded as an extremetly militant society, if such were not the case, out numbered, out classed and pretty much overwhelmed in every way that could possibly matter in a war as we were concerning the British, we would never have won our freedom. The president is not supposed to be an entity established for civilian rule over standing armies, since we're not supposed to have long term standing armies anyway.

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised a bit if increasingly, the military are the only people who vote anyway.

In any case, chain of command would not necessarily change at all under the system I'm discussing. Military service is not a lifetime commitment these days if you don't wish it to be (unless you get shot). It's almost a given that an individual will have to leave the service in order to serve in public office, and with the required committment "if you sign up for it" being only four years active duty, you can enter the military at eighteen, and the rest of your voting life, after 22 years of age, can be spent in reserve or as a total civilian.

Study Lenin and the Russian Revolutionary period; then perhaps you'll understand what I'm saying about opportunistic intellectuals and also about the comparison with Franks and Schwarzkopf (to state plainly, I complemented them, not stereotyped).

I've spent far more time studying OUR revolution than the Russian one, considering that ours had twenty or even hundred times the success. OUR revolution was run by militants, so militant, they didn't need a standing army, they all carried guns without membership in any force.

I'm out.

<!-- / message -->Good for you. Whatever.

Going to go back to a few earlier comments:

The all-volunteer force is doing fine so far.

It will continue to do just fine as long as we continue to face incredibly inferior opponents. But in the end, eventually we'll have to face the fact, that the more people we deny the right to serve, the less incentive we give to serve, and the more people who just plain don't care have voting control of the whole situation, eventually draft won't just be a dirty word anymore.

As a civilian, fine. Not as a serviceman/woman, who may have to fight for his/her life regardless of the nature of his/her work. And when that happens, you who can defend yourself and hold up your end of a fight, won't want someone beside you who can't move quickly because he/she is tied to a chair and can't get over rubble; or can't get in a foxhole because he/she is physically disabled.

<!-- sig -->
We think of soldiers all having perfect bodies and mabye even super powers. Truth be told, such individuals have always been in short supply and the more we rely expressly on them, the more the draft will have to be employed on those in said catagory whom don't wish to join.

I'm sorry, but our founding fathers, journeying through huge ice storms from one battle to the next, continuing to fight despite lost fingers and even legs, would laugh out loud at anyone who said a disabled man can't fight. Hell, they'd laugh in my face for saying to put them behind a desk. I can hear it now "what do you expect when you get out there? Dasies and roses? You're gonna get stuff blown off, you're gonna get scared so silly, most phobias will look like fun past times, you're gonna get so sick so often, you'd swear there was a new plague every day." They'll keep you from going in for a lost finger, when our founding fathers counted their lost fingers and toes two at a time as frost bite took its toll on them. They didn't care, they knew how to spell commitment, and serving was a privilage... no... it was a right.

I believe bad desicions have been made concerning the disabled in every single civilian and military job, it hasn't stopped us in the past from continuing to allow people to continue to use what they have, and not constantly dwell on what they don't. In the real military, you don't get sent home unless you get a REAL injury, and even then, only if there's a plane available.

It is not right for a man to just sit at home.

You sit at home only if your waiting for you next job, even if you have lost a leg. Many call that insensitive. You try being disabled. When you're told you can't do things you know damn well you can, you'll sing the praises of people who tell everyone else to shove it and give you a chance anyway. I have ADD and have been shoved to the back of the class many times. Was it because I honestly couldn't do the work? No. It was because I was different and increasingly in this country we just can't handle that.

[heikediguoren]

I believe bad desicions have been made concerning the disabled in every single civilian and military job, it hasn't stopped us in the past from continuing to allow people to continue to use what they have, and not constantly dwell on what they don't. In the real military, you don't get sent home unless you get a REAL injury, and even then, only if there's a plane available.

It is not right for a man to just sit at home.

You sit at home only if your waiting for you next job, even if you have lost a leg. Many call that insensitive. You try being disabled. When you're told you can't do things you know damn well you can, you'll sing the praises of people who tell everyone else to shove it and give you a chance anyway. I have ADD and have been shoved to the back of the class many times. Was it because I honestly couldn't do the work? No. It was because I was different and increasingly in this country we just can't handle that.

Many disabled people will present a significant danger to their fellow soldiers if given military positions. If a paranoid psychotic, for instance, enters the infantry, then you will have to depend on that soldier's willingness to continually take medication so that you will not become the target of a delusional personality with a fully automatic weapon.

Epileptics, cerebral palsy patients, multiple sclerosis victims, the elderly...an army requires that its soldiers have well-functioning bodies so that they can instantly obey commands and do not present a risk that their nervous systems will betray them at a critical moment in combat. These people can find employment in civilian life, where they will not endure calls for guaranteed urgent action that their bodies cannot fulfill.

Moreover, making service mandatory for all residents of a country increases the likelihood that a traitor can enter the ranks. In an all-volunteer army, the military can screen and reject recruits. You posit a system in which all must serve, even if they are disloyal to the United States of America.

[Black Phoenix]

Many disabled people will present a significant danger to their fellow soldiers if given military positions. If a paranoid psychotic, for instance, enters the infantry, then you will have to depend on that soldier's willingness to continually take medication so that you will not become the target of a delusional personality with a fully automatic weapon.

Asthma victums are already in the military and they're just given the necessary meds and trusted to take them... in any case, I'm not sure there are many parnoid psychotic people I want voting... just a thought.

Also, those less inclined for infantry, can just be put in other positions. You are aware, we already have systems in place in the military for determining individual qualifications, aren't you?

Epileptics, cerebral palsy patients, multiple sclerosis victims, the elderly...an army requires that its soldiers have well-functioning bodies so that they can instantly obey commands and do not present a risk that their nervous systems will betray them at a critical moment in combat. These people can find employment in civilian life, where they will not endure calls for guaranteed urgent action that their bodies cannot fulfill.

Increasingly, there are more and more positions that don't require combat, and ya know, our founding fathers found ways when we claim we can't. Civilians maitain all kinds of jobs where lives are on the line. I know! from now on, regaurdless of what the disabilities actually are, the disabled can no longer: join the police, firefighters, pilot aircrafts, drive cars, operate heavey machinery, help in the medical field, participate in demolition or the opposite for that matter... I know, let's just make them all spend the rest of their lives in bed the second after they lose a finger, that way, they can't cause anyone harm.

And, I'm just gonna keep saying this until folks admit to it themselves, unless you get a severe injury, you don't get kicked out, but a minor injury or disability keeps you from getting in to the military.

Moreover, making service mandatory for all residents of a country increases the likelihood that a traitor can enter the ranks. In an all-volunteer army, the military can screen and reject recruits. You posit a system in which all must serve, even if they are disloyal to the United States of America.

Mandatory for voting rights. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Honestly, you people would be just happy to disenfanchise me and many of my soon to be fellow soldiers, just because they don't happen to be over 35 like you. That's just sick. So what if a couple of screw balls out there who happen to be in our age group vote wrong, it's not our fault, and that doesn't stop laws from effecting us just as much as they do you. You accomplish nothing by simply being old. The senior citizen vote these days often floats to the left... hey I know, let's have the right to vote therefore going away at age forty-five! That's a long way off for me, so I won't care until I'm there, like all of you don't seem to care because you're no longer my age.

Allow me to say what the small states said to the larger states when debating presidential elections "frankly, I don't trust you". (Why do you think the electoral college was made?) I am not in favor of raising the voting age, that has nothing to do with the problem, all it will do in the end is disenfranchise me and my friends. Yea I know we're a minorty, but actually, I'd rather have some say at least. And lets just face it, in the past, only allowing land owners to vote was a mistake because the law effects individuals regaurdless of land ownership or age.

Mandatory short term service for the privilage of voting, would not be the same as a draft. A draft means you either serve, or go to jail/die. That's not what we're talking about.

Actually we should keep screening systems that determine basic country loyalty before entering the service. I don't want traitors voting, and that would be a far better filter than we have now... actually, we don't have one right now do we? Why would we drop that system? I don't get it.

[heikediguoren]

Asthma victums are already in the military and they're just given the necessary meds and trusted to take them... in any case, I'm not sure there are many parnoid psychotic people I want voting... just a thought.


Mentally ill people will have the right to vote in your system. Pedophiles, heroin addicts, serial killers, Down syndrome patients, and anyone else with compromised mental faculties will have the right to choose the president of the United States, as long as they can sling a mop around the barracks for four years.


Increasingly, there are more and more positions that don't require combat, and ya know, our founding fathers found ways when we claim we can't.

The founding fathers also lived without plumbing and electricity. A modern military and voting system cannot survive without these conveniences. The founding fathers' vision provides significant moral and philosophical guidance, but their lifestyles diverge drastically from that of this era. Washington didn't endure the icy torture of Valley Forge out of historical obligation, he did it because they didn't have heated tents in those days.


Civilians maitain all kinds of jobs where lives are on the line. I know! from now on, regaurdless of what the disabilities actually are, the disabled can no longer: join the police, firefighters, pilot aircrafts, drive cars, operate heavey machinery, help in the medical field, participate in demolition or the opposite for that matter


If you are in the emergency room for a gunshot wound to the abdomen, do you want a surgeon with Tourette's syndrome to operate on you? Or one with Alzheimer's? Not likely; when your life matters, you want a healthy professional to care for you.


Mandatory for voting rights. Stop putting words in my mouth.


Point taken. I incorrectly interpreted your intent.

[Black Phoenix]

Fantasy vs reality:

Fantasy:

Only patriotic and informed individuals vote!

Reality:

Would be traitors and people with literally the mentality of nine-year-olds vote all the time. We have no voting filter, the military has filters for service, why not employ them?

Fantasy:

You get a booboo and you can take the rest of life as a holiday.

Reality:

You have to go on living disabled or not and... okay, give a man in a wheel chair a gun and then tell him he shouldn't work for the rest of his life because he's disabled. Let's see how many rounds end up in your chest. In reality, those of us less inclined, want your "sensitivity", to be target practice. (Why is it called sensitive in this country, to constantly tell the disabled they can't work when they can, and then when they've practically wasted away, we start talking about the "right to die"?)

The military already has systems in place for determining proper placement, why not use them? In any case, the problems that keep you from getting in, don't get you kicked out, how logical is that?

Fantasy:

Only able bodied men should serve in the armed services and that will always be sufficient.

Reality:

That's never been suficient when America has faced worthy opponents, and the less people we allow into our force, the smaller it will become until we have to stop and actually think about what we're doing.

Fantasy:

Only severe mental disabilities keep you from serving. No one wants a psycho fighting.

Reality:

You'll get told you can't go, for ADHD.

No one wants a psycho voting either and the military would filter them out hopefully. However, those with minor or controlable mental problems should not be denied their RIGHT to serve. I would never knowingly give a paranoid psycophantic a gun, but that's no reason to keep it away from a man with simple arachnophobia.

Fantasy:

Only severe physical disabilities keep you out of the military. No one wants a man plugged into a life support system in the military.

Reality:

I'm not making this up! A man can go into a military physical with a runny nose, and be told it's evidence of a condition for which he cannot serve. My recruiter told me about this poor man, he had a common cold, but just for having a runny nose, the doctors said he had something like choronic nose drip or something. Went home and was well as any man in a few weeks no doubt, but he just couldn't serve his country.

We don't want those unable to pick up a pen voting, since others have to do it for them, and then we have huge problems determining if a vote was "planted". However, a man in a wheel chair can vote, and actually, many with all kinds of disabilities have served this country's military and served it WELL in the past.

Fantasy:

Anyone over 35 is qualified to vote.

Reality:

Mental disability is just as common at any age and no, I don't want people with the mentality of nine-year-olds voting.

The severely retarted should be filtered out by the military, that's common sense. They are NOT filtered under the current voting system, where the only real standard is, "you must be 18 or over". Raising the voting age would not effect this at all.

Fantasy:

People over 35 know best.

Reality:

Where do you think those of us under thirty-five get all our stupid anti-freedom ideas when we have them?

Those in a volunteer military are most likely to be there because they love their country. Military patriotism is not known for plummiting, and generally their heads are screwed on straight. However, the American populace, because they are given countless freedoms with absolutely nothing asked in return, are increasingly, apathetic, stupid and hate their country.

[Black Phoenix]

Mentally ill people will have the right to vote in your system. Pedophiles, heroin addicts, serial killers, Down syndrome patients, and anyone else with compromised mental faculties will have the right to choose the president of the United States, as long as they can sling a mop around the barracks for four years.

What the hell do you think they do in boot camp?

The military is not composed of such individuals, nor should it be. And I'm not supposing it should. Also, I'm proposing ADDING a condition for voting, not necessarily removing all other logical conditions and replacing them with my idea.


The founding fathers also lived without plumbing and electricity. A modern military and voting system cannot survive without these conveniences. The founding fathers' vision provides significant moral and philosophical guidance, but their lifestyles diverge drastically from that of this era. Washington didn't endure the icy torture of Valley Forge out of historical obligation, he did it because they didn't have heated tents in those days.



I wasn't aware that indoor plumbing played much of a role in the voting system.

Are you as clueless about military front lines life as you sound? You think they never go without modern conviences in Iraq or Afganistan? Why do you think boot camps are always put in areas know for harsh weather? In any case, the number of able bodied men didn't increase in propotion between then and now, or at least, it didn't enough to only ever allow the able bodied population to work and serve.

Chew on this for a while: In this country, voting is a right, staying alive long enough to vote, is becoming a privilage. Serving in public office is a right, defending your rights in any way shape matter or form from unlawlessness, foreign invaders or legal encroachment, is a privilage.


If you are in the emergency room for a gunshot wound to the abdomen, do you want a surgeon with Tourette's syndrome to operate on you? Or one with Alzheimer's? Not likely; when your life matters, you want a healthy professional to care for you.


I wouldn't give a rat's behind if the guy had ADD... hell it probably wouldn't even phase me if he were in a wheel chair. Of course we need to use logic in where these people can and cannot work, but that doesn't mean we should forbid them to work or serve at all! Every single person on this board either has, or will have a disability of a mental or physical nature at sometime in the near future, it's a pretty safe bet. So, how many of you think you should then just stop living?

Think about this: Most military personnel, will testify, if sure they won't get busted for it, that they lied at least once on their physical.

[DesertFox]

BP, you're pulling stuff outta your behind. I spent 21 years in Uncle Sam's Army, and my branch for over half my career was personnel. I know something about "most military personnel." I never lied on my physical. I know no one else who did. You need to adduce evidence for your "most military personnel" type comments or quit making them. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Black Phoenix]

BP, you're pulling stuff outta your behind. I spent 21 years in Uncle Sam's Army, and my branch for over half my career was personnel. I know something about "most military personnel." I never lied on my physical. I know no one else who did. You need to adduce evidence for your "most military personnel" type comments or quit making them. You don't know what you're talking about.


Hmm, my recruiter, who works with applicants CURRENTLY, and is a former master seargent (retired but he loves military work so he has stuck around), having served 26 years, is not a reliable source, along with the other four recruiters I've met with, all completely agreeing with him. Also my personal experience of having my entry delayed because of a bike accident from which I have no injuries, also proves nothing. If you say so!

[Rhino]

You're confusing being tied up in the bureaucracy with physical requirements. The system is screwed up, to be sure, but most military personnel do not buck the system the way you describe. Doing so would not only disqualify them, it would get them court martialed too. I'm retired military as well. I only saw one member try something like that during my career, and he was convicted of it.

[MrSanity]

When it's a leftist "American" who believes that America is somehow inferior to France, there is NO QUESTION that they are unpatriotic.

[Beowulf]

With treatable medical conditions via the use of prescription drugs, the military is pretty understanding and medics can readily distribute them in the field as needed and they know who needs what. My cousin is an Army medic and has told me so.

As far as joining the military for voting priviledges, I can support that, so long as a soldier who joins is also allowed to have a beer at 18. If they're old enough to die for their country, they're old enough for a drink. If they abuse it, UCMJ is pretty strict.

For those who don't join, I think the voting age should be 25. That way, they have some time to research issues and NOT be influenced by teachers and college professors. Amazing how much one learns when they study an issue for themselves instead of using the above mentioned teachers and professors, Mommy and Daddy and the Leftist Media as an absolute resource.

[Rhino]

I'm sure they would have known, though I highly doubt 20% have it. They never would have gotten through my medical exams, that's for sure. They also would not have received treatment for it without going through a medical board, which would have resulted in a discharge due to their not being 'worldwide qualified'.

[Black Phoenix]

With treatable medical conditions via the use of prescription drugs, the military is pretty understanding and medics can readily distribute them in the field as needed and they know who needs what. My cousin is an Army medic and has told me so.

Try joining. It's not as easy as all the comercials make it sound... then again, it's not too terribly difficult. Boot Camp is the hard part.

As far as joining the military for voting priviledges, I can support that, so long as a soldier who joins is also allowed to have a beer at 18. If they're old enough to die for their country, they're old enough for a drink. If they abuse it, UCMJ is pretty strict.


I don't understand why that would be a standard but, sure, whatever.

For those who don't join, I think the voting age should be 25. That way, they have some time to research issues and NOT be influenced by teachers and college professors. Amazing how much one learns when they study an issue for themselves instead of using the above mentioned teachers and professors, Mommy and Daddy and the Leftist Media as an absolute resource.

Being 25 or being 35 or being 85, what's the difference? Go to far, you start forgetting what you've learned! Problem is, as long as we allow the standard to be an arbitrary age, we'll always get loons who:

A: don't care
B: are stupid
C: aren't informed
D: are traitors
E: other__________
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Etaoin]

What's with the board on this subject??? When the nation was founded, only those who paid taxes voted. Since taxes were on the land owned, that determined the voting rolls. The idea was that those who paid the bills would certainly keep a sharp eye on the necessity of expenditures. With the "democratization" of the voting rolls, individual responsibility for expenditures has vanished. In the '40's Robert Heinlein, a graduate of the Naval Academy, and one of the great Science fiction writers proposed that only those who had completed military service would have the vote. I believe the book was "Starship Troopers."

The concept is based on the premise that only those who have served are fit to lead and have earned the right to vote and hold elective office.

Despite Kennedy and PT 109, Carter, and Kerry as proof that service does not necessarilly mean that a veteran will naturally be a good leader, but if only those who have served have the vote, those three wouldn't gather much support! Most veterans seem to be a bit more discerning than the average voter.

Those who don't serve in the military could earn the right to vote by serving in such organizations as the peace corps, or similar public service organizations for a period equal to twice that of military service. This service, like the military, would normally be in their teens or early 20's, though it could be postponed to any time one wanted to earn the right to vote!

I think it is a great idea....apply those restrictions to our existing congress and I think the idea is a shoo-in!