The moderators would be working overtime, if that went on over there:hehe:

:smiley_roll1:

Seriously great discussion.

Ty

Yeah sometimes it would be a damned if you do, damned if you don't. But I do think there would be room for it. Plus if the people would be more involved in whats going on in Congress instead of having the blind eye and then complaining, that would be more productive.

Also on Obama, you may like him or you may not, but he is a good speaker and he got alot of Americans to vote. Ones that have never voted. The first thing that I said when he got elected was that he needs to suround himself with quality people or he would be done for. I think he should have offered Powell a position (maybe he did and I didn't hear about it) but he did say that Powell would be on speed dial anyway.

I too would hate to see that. I've seen some of the arguements that go on over there and it just makes me laugh. Arguing and getting mad with someone on a talk forum is ridiculous.:shrug: It makes no sense. Better yet, when someone makes a post to meet someone from a different state to "settle their differences". I die when I see that.:smiley_roll1:

-Lynn

Chuck and Lynn, I suspect you might resonate to this:

The oath that we all took upon entering service, had these words: "...do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;..."

There's nothing in that oath that says we can't disagree, in fact, the Constitution gives us that right. We defend this "ideal" against all enemies. This seems to be our entire focus in the military - to defend an ideal, a way of life, the one we hold dear. We go to war to protect this ideal.

This is one reason I have never been able to feel great animosity towards Jane Fonda, for what she has been accused of doing in Hanoi. Her disagreement, and her right to voice that disagreement is a right that is guaranteed by the ideal we are sworn to support and defend.

It's also kind of sobering, isn't it, that the oath the President takes has essentially the same words?

You might guess that I've given these thoughts some time over the years.

- Jack

We are guaranteed this right, and I think it is one of the reasons this democratic experiment called the United States of America works so well. While I don't agree with Jane Fonda on a mulititude of issues, I will say it is her right to question and implore how her country conducts its buisness. If no one did that we could have opened ourselves to tyrannical rule long ago. For those who don't know there was strong communist following in our not so distant past. While many considered Jane Fonda unamerican, her and others like her continue to be a system of checks and balances.

-Lynn

Jack

You brought a memory back from my childhood in the remark about Jane Fonda.

From the childs innocent questioning of his father's ideals it came about one evening why my dad didn't like certain people or other things. I can't remember the actor but my dad was not going to watch a tv show with a &$?!:: draft dodging actor. The tv was turned off and the house was silent the rest of the evening.

Through all my experiences this one stays there. My dad shows us pictures of him and his unit. He doesn't however talk about the polictical policy side of and what he experienced during that time.

Jack, my dad did his service over there before the police action, the pre-escalation of the war 62 63 64 and for some reason it remains a mystery to us kids. We still tread lightly about the people and service of our country when we are around him.

So, I am glad to hear someone from his era speak their beliefs.

I served in the air force 89 90 released on a medical discharge.

Lars

Fixed it fer ya.:thumbs up yellow::cheesy smile:

I think, Chuck, that you're referring to the "(or affirm)" phrase? (At least I don't see any other change).

But, the "or affirm" part is actually part of the oath and is an "alternate" to "swear". This is from Wikipedia: "An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath."

I heard recently, that the "affirm" part was added to the President's oath due to the objections of members of the Quaker religion. Again, from Wikipedia, there's this: "Some Christians, who may not be Quakers, refuse to swear oaths, based on Jesus' prohibition in the Sermon on the Mount. The relevant part is:

But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

-Matthew 5:34-5:37"

So, we again see how our Constitutional ideal tries to respect an individual's rights, while still obtaining allegiance. I acknowledge that in most cases, the "affirm" alternate is simply dropped. But, if an individual such as the President, a state or federal official or a member of the armed forces requested it, the oath would be: "...do solemnly affirm that...".

- Jack

Lars, we have similar memories. My Father was in Vietnam as an "adviser" in the 62-63 time frame. Neither he or my Mother would ever see a movie with Jane Fonda in it once her action became public.

It was an interesting time, when you could not disagree without being labeled "communist".

Now, of course, we recognize Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communism hearings as a witch hunt of the very worst kind. Yet, didn't we see echos of this thinking in the years since 9-11?

We WILL be a strong nation if we start taking the high road again.

- Jack