- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why is the president still in charge of the military?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:55 pm
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:55 pm
The notion of commander-in-chief was established back when most presidents came from military backgrounds. Now that this is no longer the case, why do we still give the president so much military power?
Something seems weird to me about putting the most powerful military force on Earth in the hands of a community organizer.
Something seems weird to me about putting the most powerful military force on Earth in the hands of a community organizer.
20
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:57 pm to benhamin5555
quote:
Something seems weird to me about putting the most powerful military force on Earth in the hands of a community organizer.
Never in the history of the Earth has such an idiot had so much power at his fingertips.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:57 pm to benhamin5555
quote:
The notion of commander-in-chief was established back when most presidents came from military backgrounds. Now that this is no longer the case, why do we still give the president so much military power?
Something seems weird to me about putting the most powerful military force on Earth in the hands of a community organizer.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:57 pm to benhamin5555
quote:
The notion of commander-in-chief was established back when most presidents came from military backgrounds
It was actually established before we had any Presidents. But hey, whatever, right? Just make shite up, who cares.
quote:
Something seems weird to me about putting the most powerful military force on Earth in the hands of a community organizer.
He's a former community organizer. Right now he's the President of the United States.
If you like military coups, you should move to a nation with an independent military.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:57 pm to benhamin5555
It was the intent that the military be beholden to "the people". So the president, an "elected" representative of the people was made to be in charge of the military so that there would not be friction between the military and the elected government.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:00 pm to kingbob
quote:
It was the intent that the military be beholden to "the people". So the president, an "elected" representative of the people was made to be in charge of the military so that there would not be friction between the military and the elected government.
Sure but why not elect a seperate commander in chief who actually has military experience?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:04 pm to benhamin5555
The point was to have a.civilian in charge of the military. Checks and balances n such.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:05 pm to benhamin5555
We have the joint chiefs of staff for that. There still needs to be some sort of civilian oversight, which the president represents.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:05 pm to benhamin5555
Step away from the keyboard and try again tomorrow.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:07 pm to benhamin5555
Because then you would have the same issue of the elected commander in chief butting heads with the president. It simply made more sense to combine the positions.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:07 pm to benhamin5555
quote:
Sure but why not elect a seperate commander in chief who actually has military experience?
This would be a disaster and in complete opposition to the Founders' intent.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:10 pm to benhamin5555
quote:
Something seems weird to me about putting the most powerful military force on Earth in the hands of a community organizer.
I don't think our founders ever thought someone who had no experience and such disdain for the country would ever be elected President.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:39 pm to kywildcatfanone
Not to mention a Colored, right?!?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:41 pm to benhamin5555
Wow.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:42 pm to benhamin5555
Separation of powers. Congress authorizes war....President determines strategy to achieve the operation authorized. We would need a 4th branch if it wasn't this way.
This post was edited on 6/6/14 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:43 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Not to mention a Colored, right?!?
I didn't bring this into the conversation. You must a be a democrat operative. This is the go to card to play. Well done.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:44 pm to boosiebadazz
Come on man.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:45 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Congress authorizes war.
yet another part of the Constitution the government seems to have forgotten about
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:45 pm to kywildcatfanone
"Inexperienced, disdain for the country"...
Considering slavery and the 3/5 Compromise existed at the time, it is also quite likely that the Founding Fathers could not imagine the day a half-Negro gets elected to the highest office in the land. My statement stands as (most likely) a historical fact.
Sorry if it also put the idiocy of your statement into context.
Considering slavery and the 3/5 Compromise existed at the time, it is also quite likely that the Founding Fathers could not imagine the day a half-Negro gets elected to the highest office in the land. My statement stands as (most likely) a historical fact.
Sorry if it also put the idiocy of your statement into context.
This post was edited on 6/6/14 at 8:47 pm
Posted on 6/6/14 at 8:46 pm to BBONDS25
"Disdain for the country"??
That's a simpleton line and he should be called out for it.
That's a simpleton line and he should be called out for it.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News