The reason so few crimes are committed with them is because we have regulated them out of common use. It is very difficult to buy one.
You missed the GP's point with respect to "assault weapon" bans. The 5 million or so AR-15s are NOT fully automatic, "assault weapons" are a political fiction based on cosmetics not fullauto capability. Put a 5 round magazine into an AR-15 and it is functionally identical to various popular semiauto small game and target rifles that have detachable magazines. Put a 30 round magazine into one of these small game and target rifles and they are functionally identical to the gun banner's poster child of crime, the AR-15.
The point being that there are FAR more than 5 million semiauto rifles with detachable magazines AND there were only 348 people killed with rifles of any kind in 2012 out of a population of 312 million. The GP's point about "assault weapon" bans stand.
Wrong. The loss of civic virtue argument goes back to ancient Rome.
The OP didn't make the civic virtue argument, he made the Roman welfare queen argument. Point taken though: he did not make the currency debasement argument.
I am that OP and I did make the civic virtue argument: "Undermined the idea that citizens (both patricians and plebeians) should contribute to the greatness of their country, not that the greatness of their country entitled them to freebies."
Or if you prefer here is the original quote of Juvenal:
"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
That is what an elderly man once taught me when I was a child. He also taught me that it was regrettably necessary at times. The elderly man was once a paratrooper who jumped into Normandy the night before the D-Day landings.
He deeply regretted the regular army troops they killed, he wished there had been some way to get to those responsible for the war without going through these men. But there was not so they did what was unfortunately necessary. He had no regrets about the SS troops they killed, they were part of the political machine that caused the war.
I'll leave you with this well known Einstein quote:... how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
Einstein also wrote letters to President Roosevelt to convince him to create an atomic bomb. If you read the quote you offer you will find that it refers to offensive wars for patriotic reasons. It does not preclude defensive wars in response to an actual threat. Which is the context in which he wrote President Roosevelt.
The quote you offer in fact contradicts your premise. Even Einstein believed that some wars were justifiable. In this case a war resisting the Nazis.
Before you offer his later quote regretting his role in the atomic bomb's development note that it was in the context that Germany would not have developed the bomb prior to its defeat. That the fear of a Nazi a-bomb would never have been realized. He still considered his action justifiable in the sense that at the time (1939) it seemed very plausible that that Nazi's might attain the a-bomb.
Wrong. The loss of civic virtue argument goes back to ancient Rome.
"Rome, even more than Greece, produced a number of moralistic philosophers such as Cicero, and moralistic historians such as Tacitus, Sallust, Plutarch and Livy. Many of these figures were either personally involved in power struggles that took place in the late Roman Republic, or wrote elegies to liberty which was lost during their transition to the Roman Empire. They tended to blame this loss of liberty on the perceived lack of civic virtue in their contemporaries, contrasting them with idealistic examples of virtue drawn from Roman history, and even non-Roman barbarians." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_virtue
It was the free bread and circuses and other freebies designed to buy the votes of the citizenry.
It's pretty obvious when someone rides their hobby horse into various topics and tries to rewrite reality according to their ideology. In your case, the not-sublte-at-all implication that ZOMG money to poor to buy food, shelter and medicine will be the end of civilization.
It's not clever. It's you being a sociopath and a social darwinist.
Actually it is you who is having their ideology cause them to see things that are not there, to falsely interpret things. "Entitlement" is an old word, it predates your hot button politics.
No one said anything about food, shelter, or medicine for the poor. What is being referred to are freebies to any voter, poor or not. Its simple vote buying. And selling your vote to whoever promises you the most is part of the formula for decay. In the earlier days of Rome more care was shown for the abilities and policies of political candidates. They were more inclined to vote for what was best for the country, not necessarily what was best for themselves.
Here is the context for "bread and circuses" that clearly eludes you:
"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses" - Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
JFK was a Democrat so I've always found it incredibly IRONIC that one of his most famous quotes is 'ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country'...wtf happened here?
JFK was very different from today's Democrats. He believed in moderate taxation. Only moderate federal meddling in local affairs. He was much like the conservative Democrats or moderate Republicans that just can't get elected any more.
JFK was also later misrepresented by more liberal Democrats. For example the notion that he was going to withdraw the U.S. from Vietnam. His brother Robert, who served as his Attorney General, had stated that JFK was committed to fighting in Vietnam and defeating communism. His commitment to manned spaceflight was also misrepresented. He voted against manned missions as a senator, he thought manned flight too expensive and thought what we would now refer to as robotic mission would be a better idea. He became pro manned spaceflight as a concession to Lyndon Johnson, who was his Vice President, and due to Yuri Gagarin's spaceflight. Space, another arena where the communists must be defeated.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that you don't have a fucking clue about anything Rome related instead of demonstrating it?
Some of the preeminent scholarly works regarding the fall of Rome refer to a decline in "civic virtue". A loss of a sense of responsibility and duty to the Roman state, replaced with a greater loyalty to a person (general or politician) who offered the greater rewards. To inform yourself as to what this "civic virtue" and sense of responsibility once entailed try reading Livy.
Because the concept of citizenship transformed from one heavy on responsibility to one heavy with entitlement.
Responsibility to what, exactly speaking? Foreign conqueror? An abstract concept of a nation? "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Do you perhaps think a shorter list inspires more loyalty?
My point is that there was a decline in loyalty. A decline in willingness to contribute.
Romans no longer felt the need to personally defend their frontier, as compared to their ancestors who effectively had universal conscription.
So bread is a "freebie" but the blood in my veins is public property? Really? And what's this talk about "my" frontier - I don't own any land, so what's my stake defending your frontier?
The only way it could be my frontier was if I owned a share of the state, but in that case the bread and circuses are not "freebies", they're the dividend I'm entitled to as a shareholder. Or you can go fight the Huns by yourself while I walk away. Choose freely.
Soldiers were at time given land on the frontier. The freebies referred to are those given to the later citizens living in the city of Rome, citizens who largely no longer answered the call to service when their fellow citizens on the frontier were being attacked. As their ancestors once did.
... requiring that Roman legions were 100% citizens of Rome would kind of put a selective pressure where citizens that serves would be less likely to have offspring than the ones that avoided service.
Early Rome employed universal conscription. All men of "military age" were eligible to be called into service immediately. Emphasis immediately. You could be called, handed your kit and be in the ranks ready to march within a day.
Then there was the advent of cavalry, and later heavy cavalry, that made roman legions quite obsolete.
Early Rome also employed cavalry. Patricians usually served in the cavalry, later wealthier plebeians as well (had to supply your own horse).
Anther very important reason was that Romans were not innovators. They were builders. Once they absorbed the knowledge of the Greeks, they didn't really improve upon it. Romans took the best parts of cultures and assimilated it.
Severely misinformed. The Romans were quick to adapt. Yes, they assimilated but they also improved upon. Look at how the javelin evolved into the pilum. By the way, the pilum was used quite effectively against cavalry.
Lots of reasons to choose from. But "entitlements" was certainly not it.
You own citations refer to a "a loss of civic virtue" as an underlying cost. A transfer of loyalty from the state to a military commander as another, which is yet another manifestation of a loss of civic virtue. Citing this battle being lost, this territory lost, etc are the symptoms of the disease not the underlying cause. The underlying cause is a sense of entitlement, a notion that government owes me much and I owe it little; that core values are secondary to immediate gain.
Over expansion may lead to contraction, not necessarily to complete collapse. I think one of the more iconic examples of the underlying cause, responsibilities vs entitlements, is that Romans no longer felt a need to personally defend their frontier, wherever that frontier line may be drawn. That it was OK to outsource it to the barbarians. That's quite a change from their ancestors who believed they were all personally liable for military service when of "military age".
And why were mercenaries guarding the frontier? Because the concept of citizenship transformed from one heavy on responsibility to one heavy with entitlement. Romans no longer felt the need to personally defend their frontier, as compared to their ancestors who effectively had universal conscription. All of military age were expected to be ready to serve in time of war, even the "seniors" and "juniors" may be called up to serve in more severe times of crisis. Although these later were usually assigned to the defense of the city itself in order to free up those of military age to be part of the mobile forces.
The emperors were a symptom, not a cause. Again, I think the underlying cause is the transformation in beliefs about the responsibilities and entitlements of citizenship. Emperors were a resurrection of the Roman kings, and the kings were destroyed by those of the older mindset.
Its the mindset of the citizenry, the shift that took place that is at the heart of so many of Rome's problems. In earlier centuries there was a greater sense of personal responsibility and duty. Universal conscription vs hire some barbarians is just one example. A common theme is that I am entitled to much and responsible for little. The games are just a metaphor for the distraction and buying off.
Gasoline's energy density is nothing special, the advantage it has is in procurement, having resulted from millions of years of energy collection which means the effort of getting to it is trivial. And compared to the alternatives, it's a messy bit of junk.
You are confusing storage not collection. The energy was collected over the very short time span of a plant in a swamp. The millions of years that turns this into crude oil is just chemical transformation and storage.
Gasoline is a simple molecule that can be created in a variety of ways. One way is the distilling of crude oil. Another is biological production via engineered photosynthetic organisms. Same energy source of the fossil fuels, the sun, however carbon is coming from the current atmosphere not carbon sequestered millions of years ago. Its a much greener process.
Put ALL effort into engines that don't use fossil fuel at all. Thanks.
Gasoline, diesel, etc don't have to be Fossil Fuels. We can make them with a biological process for example. These processes are basically carbon neutral since the carbon emitted during internal combustion recently came out of the atmosphere.
we will not be happy until the fear mongering military industrial complex bankrupts this country. Rome was not built in a day, but neither did it fall in a day. We are falling now, will we catch it?
I'm no fan of the military industrial complex, nor a fan of an major source of government waste. We could get a more effective defense for less money. That said...
The military industrial complex did not destroy Rome. It was the free bread and circuses and other freebies designed to buy the votes of the citizenry. This not only racked up the debt but it undermined the concept of citizenship. Undermined the idea that citizens (both patricians and plebeians) should contribute to the greatness of their country, not that the greatness of their country entitled them to freebies.
Pure intellectual dishonesty. If you honestly think you are making a meaningful point by trying to disclaim ownership of your own words then you've got some serious problems with hypocrisy.
I disclaim nothing. I merely try to correct your failure to understand what I have consistently been saying. My message has been the same all along. Your understanding of that message has progressed from misunderstanding to denial. I suppose that is a kind of progress.
He deserves no more respect than some joe off the street
Straw man. No one said to treat an ordinary person on the street rudely.
So the reference to military and the use of the term "rank" was just random verbiage, not at all indicative of anything.
Not at all. You simply fail to comprehend. Note the "or" between "rank" and "office". That means they are two separate and independent things. Now note the word "tradition" that follows "military". It is the military tradition to respect rank or office, that means they are polite to both generals and to senators for example. It doesn't matter if they think the senator or general is personally slime, the respect is shown to the rank of general and the office of senator.
If the qualifications for attaining the office are disreputable than the office itself holds no inherent respect.
There is no such qualification. It may be common but it is not required.
This isn't a case of reading comprehension, it is a case of you being so trapped in your own world view you can't conceive of any other interpretations of the facts.
No, you are failing really hard again. The respect is for the rank or office not the person. The slime of the person demeans the person, not the rank or office.
Also did you grasp what was meant by respect? Its not respecting the person as in some sort of trust or loyalty, it is respect as in decorum and courtesy. In other words you behave yourself when at a meeting with the president.
I'm going with the military tradition that you show respect to the rank or office not the man temporarily holding it.
What a terrible, delusional way to see civilian government.
What a terrible reading comprehension fail.
We don't have rank. There are no "superior officers."
That's why I wrote "rank or office". The Presidency is an office.
People who hold office in america didn't get there through honorable service, they did it by winning a popularity contest by spending the money of donors they are now beholden to.
Again, reading comprehension. I wrote that one shows respect to the office not the person temporarily holding the office. And by respect I am referring to decorum and courtesy. Want to tell BHO "f**k no" to his face when he suggests changing the meeting topic from the NSA to the website, wait until the next person is sworn in. While he still holds the office you show respect to the Presidency by saying "no sir" or "no Mr President" when he suggests changing the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Fully automatic. Think Tommy gun.
The reason so few crimes are committed with them is because we have regulated them out of common use. It is very difficult to buy one.
You missed the GP's point with respect to "assault weapon" bans. The 5 million or so AR-15s are NOT fully automatic, "assault weapons" are a political fiction based on cosmetics not fullauto capability. Put a 5 round magazine into an AR-15 and it is functionally identical to various popular semiauto small game and target rifles that have detachable magazines. Put a 30 round magazine into one of these small game and target rifles and they are functionally identical to the gun banner's poster child of crime, the AR-15.
The point being that there are FAR more than 5 million semiauto rifles with detachable magazines AND there were only 348 people killed with rifles of any kind in 2012 out of a population of 312 million. The GP's point about "assault weapon" bans stand.
The OP didn't make the civic virtue argument, he made the Roman welfare queen argument. Point taken though: he did not make the currency debasement argument.
I am that OP and I did make the civic virtue argument: "Undermined the idea that citizens (both patricians and plebeians) should contribute to the greatness of their country, not that the greatness of their country entitled them to freebies."
Or if you prefer here is the original quote of Juvenal:
"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
War is bad/wrong/immoral.
That is what an elderly man once taught me when I was a child. He also taught me that it was regrettably necessary at times. The elderly man was once a paratrooper who jumped into Normandy the night before the D-Day landings.
He deeply regretted the regular army troops they killed, he wished there had been some way to get to those responsible for the war without going through these men. But there was not so they did what was unfortunately necessary. He had no regrets about the SS troops they killed, they were part of the political machine that caused the war.
There are no justifiable wars ...
... how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
I'll leave you with this well known Einstein quote:
Einstein also wrote letters to President Roosevelt to convince him to create an atomic bomb. If you read the quote you offer you will find that it refers to offensive wars for patriotic reasons. It does not preclude defensive wars in response to an actual threat. Which is the context in which he wrote President Roosevelt.
The quote you offer in fact contradicts your premise. Even Einstein believed that some wars were justifiable. In this case a war resisting the Nazis.
Before you offer his later quote regretting his role in the atomic bomb's development note that it was in the context that Germany would not have developed the bomb prior to its defeat. That the fear of a Nazi a-bomb would never have been realized. He still considered his action justifiable in the sense that at the time (1939) it seemed very plausible that that Nazi's might attain the a-bomb.
OK, This is Mises's revisionism
Wrong. The loss of civic virtue argument goes back to ancient Rome.
"Rome, even more than Greece, produced a number of moralistic philosophers such as Cicero, and moralistic historians such as Tacitus, Sallust, Plutarch and Livy. Many of these figures were either personally involved in power struggles that took place in the late Roman Republic, or wrote elegies to liberty which was lost during their transition to the Roman Empire. They tended to blame this loss of liberty on the perceived lack of civic virtue in their contemporaries, contrasting them with idealistic examples of virtue drawn from Roman history, and even non-Roman barbarians."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_virtue
It's pretty obvious when someone rides their hobby horse into various topics and tries to rewrite reality according to their ideology. In your case, the not-sublte-at-all implication that ZOMG money to poor to buy food, shelter and medicine will be the end of civilization.
It's not clever. It's you being a sociopath and a social darwinist.
Actually it is you who is having their ideology cause them to see things that are not there, to falsely interpret things. "Entitlement" is an old word, it predates your hot button politics.
No one said anything about food, shelter, or medicine for the poor. What is being referred to are freebies to any voter, poor or not. Its simple vote buying. And selling your vote to whoever promises you the most is part of the formula for decay. In the earlier days of Rome more care was shown for the abilities and policies of political candidates. They were more inclined to vote for what was best for the country, not necessarily what was best for themselves.
Here is the context for "bread and circuses" that clearly eludes you:
"Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses" - Juvenal, Satire 10.77–81
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses
JFK was a Democrat so I've always found it incredibly IRONIC that one of his most famous quotes is 'ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country'...wtf happened here?
JFK was very different from today's Democrats. He believed in moderate taxation. Only moderate federal meddling in local affairs. He was much like the conservative Democrats or moderate Republicans that just can't get elected any more.
JFK was also later misrepresented by more liberal Democrats. For example the notion that he was going to withdraw the U.S. from Vietnam. His brother Robert, who served as his Attorney General, had stated that JFK was committed to fighting in Vietnam and defeating communism. His commitment to manned spaceflight was also misrepresented. He voted against manned missions as a senator, he thought manned flight too expensive and thought what we would now refer to as robotic mission would be a better idea. He became pro manned spaceflight as a concession to Lyndon Johnson, who was his Vice President, and due to Yuri Gagarin's spaceflight. Space, another arena where the communists must be defeated.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that you don't have a fucking clue about anything Rome related instead of demonstrating it?
Some of the preeminent scholarly works regarding the fall of Rome refer to a decline in "civic virtue". A loss of a sense of responsibility and duty to the Roman state, replaced with a greater loyalty to a person (general or politician) who offered the greater rewards. To inform yourself as to what this "civic virtue" and sense of responsibility once entailed try reading Livy.
Responsibility to what, exactly speaking? Foreign conqueror? An abstract concept of a nation? "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" Do you perhaps think a shorter list inspires more loyalty?
My point is that there was a decline in loyalty. A decline in willingness to contribute.
So bread is a "freebie" but the blood in my veins is public property? Really? And what's this talk about "my" frontier - I don't own any land, so what's my stake defending your frontier?
The only way it could be my frontier was if I owned a share of the state, but in that case the bread and circuses are not "freebies", they're the dividend I'm entitled to as a shareholder. Or you can go fight the Huns by yourself while I walk away. Choose freely.
Soldiers were at time given land on the frontier. The freebies referred to are those given to the later citizens living in the city of Rome, citizens who largely no longer answered the call to service when their fellow citizens on the frontier were being attacked. As their ancestors once did.
... requiring that Roman legions were 100% citizens of Rome would kind of put a selective pressure where citizens that serves would be less likely to have offspring than the ones that avoided service.
Early Rome employed universal conscription. All men of "military age" were eligible to be called into service immediately. Emphasis immediately. You could be called, handed your kit and be in the ranks ready to march within a day.
Then there was the advent of cavalry, and later heavy cavalry, that made roman legions quite obsolete.
Early Rome also employed cavalry. Patricians usually served in the cavalry, later wealthier plebeians as well (had to supply your own horse).
Anther very important reason was that Romans were not innovators. They were builders. Once they absorbed the knowledge of the Greeks, they didn't really improve upon it. Romans took the best parts of cultures and assimilated it.
Severely misinformed. The Romans were quick to adapt. Yes, they assimilated but they also improved upon. Look at how the javelin evolved into the pilum. By the way, the pilum was used quite effectively against cavalry.
Lots of reasons to choose from. But "entitlements" was certainly not it.
You own citations refer to a "a loss of civic virtue" as an underlying cost. A transfer of loyalty from the state to a military commander as another, which is yet another manifestation of a loss of civic virtue. Citing this battle being lost, this territory lost, etc are the symptoms of the disease not the underlying cause. The underlying cause is a sense of entitlement, a notion that government owes me much and I owe it little; that core values are secondary to immediate gain.
Over expansion may lead to contraction, not necessarily to complete collapse. I think one of the more iconic examples of the underlying cause, responsibilities vs entitlements, is that Romans no longer felt a need to personally defend their frontier, wherever that frontier line may be drawn. That it was OK to outsource it to the barbarians. That's quite a change from their ancestors who believed they were all personally liable for military service when of "military age".
And why were mercenaries guarding the frontier? Because the concept of citizenship transformed from one heavy on responsibility to one heavy with entitlement. Romans no longer felt the need to personally defend their frontier, as compared to their ancestors who effectively had universal conscription. All of military age were expected to be ready to serve in time of war, even the "seniors" and "juniors" may be called up to serve in more severe times of crisis. Although these later were usually assigned to the defense of the city itself in order to free up those of military age to be part of the mobile forces.
The emperors were a symptom, not a cause. Again, I think the underlying cause is the transformation in beliefs about the responsibilities and entitlements of citizenship. Emperors were a resurrection of the Roman kings, and the kings were destroyed by those of the older mindset.
Its the mindset of the citizenry, the shift that took place that is at the heart of so many of Rome's problems. In earlier centuries there was a greater sense of personal responsibility and duty. Universal conscription vs hire some barbarians is just one example. A common theme is that I am entitled to much and responsible for little. The games are just a metaphor for the distraction and buying off.
In what universe is gasoline a molecule? I was under the impression it was a mix of various hydrocarbon molecules (among other things).
OK its a few simple molecules, C7H16 through C11H24. Things vary with the desired octane. Ignoring government mandated additives MTBE, dyes, etc
Still, very amenable to a biological process.
Gasoline's energy density is nothing special, the advantage it has is in procurement, having resulted from millions of years of energy collection which means the effort of getting to it is trivial. And compared to the alternatives, it's a messy bit of junk.
You are confusing storage not collection. The energy was collected over the very short time span of a plant in a swamp. The millions of years that turns this into crude oil is just chemical transformation and storage.
Gasoline is a simple molecule that can be created in a variety of ways. One way is the distilling of crude oil. Another is biological production via engineered photosynthetic organisms. Same energy source of the fossil fuels, the sun, however carbon is coming from the current atmosphere not carbon sequestered millions of years ago. Its a much greener process.
Put ALL effort into engines that don't use fossil fuel at all. Thanks.
Gasoline, diesel, etc don't have to be Fossil Fuels. We can make them with a biological process for example. These processes are basically carbon neutral since the carbon emitted during internal combustion recently came out of the atmosphere.
we will not be happy until the fear mongering military industrial complex bankrupts this country. Rome was not built in a day, but neither did it fall in a day. We are falling now, will we catch it?
I'm no fan of the military industrial complex, nor a fan of an major source of government waste. We could get a more effective defense for less money. That said ...
The military industrial complex did not destroy Rome. It was the free bread and circuses and other freebies designed to buy the votes of the citizenry. This not only racked up the debt but it undermined the concept of citizenship. Undermined the idea that citizens (both patricians and plebeians) should contribute to the greatness of their country, not that the greatness of their country entitled them to freebies.
Uh, dogs also poop at night. I don't the sun would be in their eyes at midnight.
You are assuming the researchers are watching at night.
I wonder how many scientists who happen to own a dog are now writing grant applications.
Hhhm, and just where did anyone say to treat the president rudely?
Well you are vehemently objecting in a thread saying one should be polite to the President.
Pure intellectual dishonesty. If you honestly think you are making a meaningful point by trying to disclaim ownership of your own words then you've got some serious problems with hypocrisy.
I disclaim nothing. I merely try to correct your failure to understand what I have consistently been saying. My message has been the same all along. Your understanding of that message has progressed from misunderstanding to denial. I suppose that is a kind of progress.
He deserves no more respect than some joe off the street
Straw man. No one said to treat an ordinary person on the street rudely.
I'm sure that was once a consideration. Its just that the ridges found a new purpose once a very similarly sized dollar coin was introduced.
So the reference to military and the use of the term "rank" was just random verbiage, not at all indicative of anything.
Not at all. You simply fail to comprehend. Note the "or" between "rank" and "office". That means they are two separate and independent things. Now note the word "tradition" that follows "military". It is the military tradition to respect rank or office, that means they are polite to both generals and to senators for example. It doesn't matter if they think the senator or general is personally slime, the respect is shown to the rank of general and the office of senator.
If the qualifications for attaining the office are disreputable than the office itself holds no inherent respect.
There is no such qualification. It may be common but it is not required.
This isn't a case of reading comprehension, it is a case of you being so trapped in your own world view you can't conceive of any other interpretations of the facts.
No, you are failing really hard again. The respect is for the rank or office not the person. The slime of the person demeans the person, not the rank or office.
Also did you grasp what was meant by respect? Its not respecting the person as in some sort of trust or loyalty, it is respect as in decorum and courtesy. In other words you behave yourself when at a meeting with the president.
There's not even a point in making them ridged any more. Who's going to shave a copper/nickel alloy?
The ridges help tell quarters from dollar coins.
I'm going with the military tradition that you show respect to the rank or office not the man temporarily holding it.
What a terrible, delusional way to see civilian government.
What a terrible reading comprehension fail.
We don't have rank. There are no "superior officers."
That's why I wrote "rank or office". The Presidency is an office.
People who hold office in america didn't get there through honorable service, they did it by winning a popularity contest by spending the money of donors they are now beholden to.
Again, reading comprehension. I wrote that one shows respect to the office not the person temporarily holding the office. And by respect I am referring to decorum and courtesy. Want to tell BHO "f**k no" to his face when he suggests changing the meeting topic from the NSA to the website, wait until the next person is sworn in. While he still holds the office you show respect to the Presidency by saying "no sir" or "no Mr President" when he suggests changing the topic.