Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Congress cut the spending at Obamas urging and stated desire to cut funds for the military.
This alleged coming of peace you claim is just starting to flare up again because of the feckless actions of the coward-in-chief. Look at the refuge situation, a direct result of Obama policies. It will result in combat actions, imo.
I never said peace is afoot.. The prerequisite for having this type of discussion is at least trying to be intellectually honest. And you never answered my question, who actually wrote Sequestration into law, Obama or Congress? Please be honest this time...
Sounds like an extremely qualified candidate. So people are against the appointment because they believe in discrimination based on sexual preferences?
If a president can appoint an insane and incompetent person such as Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, why can't Obama choose someone for a lesser position who is eminently qualified and has risen through the ranks despite the discrimination toward gays in the military?
"Mr. Fanning, 47 years old, has long been known in Pentagon circles as a rising star. Before working for Mr. Carter, he was the undersecretary of the Air Force. For a time, he served simultaneously in that job as well as serving as an acting secretary of that service. A graduate of Dartmouth College, Mr. Fanning began a career in public service as a research assistant for the House Armed Services Committee in 1991."
Why was it so hard for you to say that from the beginning instead of dancing around it ????
That being said, your reasoning doesnt make sense for multiple reasons.
The first being this is a civilian position and as far as I can tell, the last 3 previous holders of this office have not been a member of the armed forces. And there seems to be a tradition of atleast nominating individuals who have either never served or been out of service for a considerable amount of time.
2. Because you have no idea of this man is a follower, being a security adviser for 2 decades means he has served presidents of both parties. And calling someone a follower sounds more like a political talking point than an actual reason to believe that person is not qualified for the position they are being nominated for.
What many people don't understand, in the military you follow orders your entire career. Junior enlisted follow orders from NCOs, NCOs follow orders from officers, junior officers follow orders from senior officers, and senior officers follow orders from politicians. This is how our military works. The military develops professionals but it is hardly a bastion of free thought... While having prior service is a qualification that should be looked at (along with others qualifications), it shouldn't be a prerequisite for a civilian position...
Obama is ONE DISGUSTING POS. The leadership of the military and safety and security of the United States should not be a place to play his silly-azzed little social engineering games. Homosexuals make up ~1% of the general population, and a fraction of that in the military. Is it really worth throwing away 99% of the pool of candidates to find a homo to stick in that position? Does anyone actually believe that this person, who just happens to be gay, is actually the best person in the entire country, with a population of 330 million or so, to lead the Army? Is it really worth that much of a slap in the face to the vast majority of service members?
This is about as disrespectful as electing a commander in chief that "loaths the military". Sick, political pandering by the narcissist in chief.
Obama is ONE DISGUSTING POS. The leadership of the military and safety and security of the United States should not be a place to play his silly-azzed little social engineering games. Homosexuals make up ~1% of the general population, and a fraction of that in the military.
I don't know where you get that 1% figure, but I reject it as a gross understatement. If you carefully review the demographic research done by the University of Indiana's Institute for Sex Research in Bloomington, IN you will see that the number is closer to 4.5% to 6% of the population of LGBT Americans.
That's why a town like St. Petersburg, Florida, can have a gay pride parade where upwards of 100,000 people come out for. Okay many are straight supporters of the LGBT community, but no one can suppose more than half of those people are straight. In any case, Jews only make up 2% of the US population but account for 20% of the graduates of "Ivy League" Universities, and 33% of the justices on the US Supreme Court. So what is your point?
I have no doubt Obama is only doing it for political reasons. As long he is the most qualified its good to me. In the last poll in the Military Times, the Military is fine with Gays in the military. Obama on the other hand one of the least popular CICs of all time with the military.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
