What are Heros?

[rigney]

Using such a caption is going to cost me big time since we have so few heros today that we feel worthy of being honored as HEROS. Many, if not most of you have no idea who either man is on the podium. But check out the honoree and then determine if he is worthy of this award? Give me your input.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU-A7eqadho&feature=related

Edited December 23, 2011 by rigney

[rigney]

Using such a caption is going to cost me big time since we have so few heros today that we feel worthy of being honored as HEROS. Many, if not most of you have no idea who either man is on the podium. But check out the honoree and then determine if he is worthy of this award? Give me your input.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU-A7eqadho&feature=related

Maybe I made a mistake. Perhaps both President Obama and Barney Frank should have received this award? Edited December 26, 2011 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

I don't think this should be in politics. Placing it here should allow members to agree or disagree with politics (with conflicts the US is in), and that seems off topic to me. The soldiers fight the wars of the politicians, they do not make policies.

 

The veteran guy did say something related to politics:

Maybe... military service ought to be a requirement of our political leaders today.

 

Although I have something to say about that, I am not sure it is on topic, so I will not discuss it (yet?).

 

On topic: is this guy a hero? I have no idea. He's certainly brave to say certain things on stage, but that doesn't make him a hero to me yet. And I am not sure what he has done to receive that award. The video said very little about his actual achievements, or even in which conflict that happened. A hero in one country is a terrorist in another country... and this is an international forum, so I am not sure we can ever agree on a definition of a "hero".

[iNow]

Having read the OPs posts for some time now, I suspect that his position is that the individual is a hero by definition... due solely to the fact that he chose to serve in the military of the US. Many Americans (and I can appreciate some of this attitude myself) think that soldier is a synonym with hero.

[rigney]

Having read the OPs posts for some time now, I suspect that his position is that the individual is a hero by definition... due solely to the fact that he chose to serve in the military of the US. Many Americans (and I can appreciate some of this attitude myself) think that soldier is a synonym with hero.

If you noticed the heading for my topic, I never referred to Kris as a hero. Heros are hard to define. But even a five year old child can become one if the situation dictates it. I just happened to see this in an email and had no idea that he or Willie were ever in the military. I simply like his songs and the gravelly voice he puts them across with. If you have ever heard his music you'll know what i mean. And the Obama and Barney Frank thing, I was just making a comparison. And yes, politics do make strange bed fellows. Here's a short bio of Kris: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001434/bio

 

I don't think this should be in politics. Placing it here should allow members to agree or disagree with politics (with conflicts the US is in), and that seems off topic to me. The soldiers fight the wars of the politicians, they do not make policies.

 

The veteran guy did say something related to politics:

 

 

Although I have something to say about that, I am not sure it is on topic, so I will not discuss it (yet?).

 

On topic: is this guy a hero? I have no idea. He's certainly brave to say certain things on stage, but that doesn't make him a hero to me yet. And I am not sure what he has done to receive that award. The video said very little about his actual achievements, or even in which conflict that happened. A hero in one country is a terrorist in another country... and this is an international forum, so I am not sure we can ever agree on a definition of a "hero".

As I related to iNow, nowhere was Kris referred to as a hero. And politics?, Perhaps each of us should take a closer look at a fellows qualifications before electing him to office. Kristoffersons credentials? Dial his biography up on the internet and you can check his history out in a heart beat. That's more than can be said for some politicians. Edited December 27, 2011 by rigney

[JustinW]

Being from Texas I think it might be against the law if someone didn't like Willie or Kris. That Highwaymen tour was one of the greats. As for polititions I would have to agree that they should serve the country in a way that puts their lives on the line. It might give them a better appreciation for how this country was built and what it takes to keep it safe.

[rigney]

Being from Texas I think it might be against the law if someone didn't like Willie or Kris. That Highwaymen tour was one of the greats. As for polititions I would have to agree that they should serve the country in a way that puts their lives on the line. It might give them a better appreciation for how this country was built and what it takes to keep it safe.

Couldn't agree with you more! But real politicians should never have their butts put on the line, we need them; even if only figuratively. Three years of constant K.P. on one of Sheriff Arpaios detention centers in Arizona should get them to a perspective of either dedicating their lifves to "HONESTY",or politics. Edited December 27, 2011 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

I already mentioned I have something to say about this... so here goes.

 

Being from Texas I think it might be against the law if someone didn't like Willie or Kris. That Highwaymen tour was one of the greats. As for polititions I would have to agree that they should serve the country in a way that puts their lives on the line. It might give them a better appreciation for how this country was built and what it takes to keep it safe.

I couldn't disagree with you more!

If your politicians (with the exception of the president) are also members of the military, police or other armed forces, you have broken the Separation of Powers (trias politica).

 

Senate and House of Representatives are part of the Legislative branch of a state. The army and police are the Executive branch. However, the president is also part of the executive branch, and is in fact the commander-in-chief in the US. You should not combine the two branches.

 

For the discussion, let's assume that high-level politicians are all members of the armed forces. First question, high or low rank in the armed forces?

Low rank: If they have a high position in the Washington, but a low rank in the army, this would probably lead to problems. How could someone follow orders in a situation where their lives are at risk, and then be allowed to make the laws when back home?? And what if a higher officer dislikes a politician? 100 push-ups every morning for passing the wrong law? Or always select the politician for the most dangerous jobs? It would give huge power to the officers that rank higher than the politicians.

 

It can probably only work if the politicians would be high-ranking officers, although that would possibly be the worst outcome of all. Because, how could this work:

 

- A democratic army command. It could mean you vote for your military leaders. Probably a bad idea, because it may be better to select the best tacticians rather than allowing the voters to have a say about this.

- A military dictatorship. It could also mean your army commanders are allowed to make laws (but are not elected). No good.

- Only high ranking officers in the army can be elected. Still, that's not much different from the dictatorship.

 

The only thing that can work is if you say that if you want to be elected, you should have served in the army in the past.

 

I am very curious to hear how you guys think this could work, without ending up with a dictatorship or a crappy army command.

[rigney]

I already mentioned I have something to say about this... so here goes.

 

 

I couldn't disagree with you more!

If your politicians (with the exception of the president) are also members of the military, police or other armed forces, you have broken the Separation of Powers (trias politica).

 

Senate and House of Representatives are part of the Legislative branch of a state. The army and police are the Executive branch. However, the president is also part of the executive branch, and is in fact the commander-in-chief in the US. You should not combine the two branches.

 

For the discussion, let's assume that high-level politicians are all members of the armed forces. First question, high or low rank in the armed forces?

Low rank: If they have a high position in the Washington, but a low rank in the army, this would probably lead to problems. How could someone follow orders in a situation where their lives are at risk, and then be allowed to make the laws when back home?? And what if a higher officer dislikes a politician? 100 push-ups every morning for passing the wrong law? Or always select the politician for the most dangerous jobs? It would give huge power to the officers that rank higher than the politicians.

 

It can probably only work if the politicians would be high-ranking officers, although that would possibly be the worst outcome of all. Because, how could this work:

 

- A democratic army command. It could mean you vote for your military leaders. Probably a bad idea, because it may be better to select the best tacticians rather than allowing the voters to have a say about this.

- A military dictatorship. It could also mean your army commanders are allowed to make laws (but are not elected). No good.

- Only high ranking officers in the army can be elected. Still, that's not much different from the dictatorship.

 

The only thing that can work is if you say that if you want to be elected, you should have served in the army in the past.

 

I am very curious to hear how you guys think this could work, without ending up with a dictatorship or a crappy army command.

 

You are absolutely right Captain. But I honestly don't believe JustinW was implying that we combine our military forces and government any more than I did. Seems like every dictatorship that has ever arisen, came from that concept. 'One Man Rule' As justin and I both related, it wouldn't hurt for politicians to do some time in the military, "prior" to running for elected office. Not all, mind you! Many of our presidents and other distinguished political officials were never in the military. As far as Kris and Willie are concerned, neither are politicians for which i am glad. Had Willie been prez, he would likely have used the oval office as a place to stash his "Toke Poke", not cigars and other parlor games. And Kris? With all of that security, it would have been a fine place to store his "Jack Daniels". Edited December 28, 2011 by rigney

[JustinW]

Yes this too was what I meant. I thought somehow that the "prior" was automattically implied. Poor ASSumption I made for myself.

 

 

 

For the discussion, let's assume that high-level politicians are all members of the armed forces. First question, high or low rank in the armed forces?

Low rank: If they have a high position in the Washington, but a low rank in the army, this would probably lead to problems. How could someone follow orders in a situation where their lives are at risk, and then be allowed to make the laws when back home?? And what if a higher officer dislikes a politician? 100 push-ups every morning for passing the wrong law? Or always select the politician for the most dangerous jobs? It would give huge power to the officers that rank higher than the politicians.

Although this aspect of this was certainly intertaining. Could you imagine making Biden do 100 push-ups every morning. It might curb the foul language on public TV.(well..a little anyway)

Edited December 28, 2011 by JustinW