Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

I didnt know that.
However, that seems to me to be a weak attempt if that is all he has done.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Quote:

I didnt know that.

No ****!

Quote:

However, that seems to me to be a weak attempt if that is all he has done.

Might it be that you are again jumping to conclusions that are unwarranted due to your abysmal lack of requisite knowledge.

Naaaahhh, MM, not having adequately researched, perish the thought.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

You have no idea what you are talking about, and make that more apparent every time you post.

It seems, from reading here, that I'm on the same side as Mr Obama (the in-office version I mean), military chiefs and Republican filibusters.

I presume therefore that they also have no idea what they are talking about and that it is more apparent everytime they speak on the matter. Am I simply the bully's easy target. Are you charging the Commander in Chief, the Generals and the Republicans with damaging the military? If they are resisting improving the military, as you assert, they must be damaging it. Surely!

It isn't a question of what is aimed at as of the chances of it working out. There are too many people who have worked in uniform at jobs which civilians of both sexes can do who go around for the rest of their lives talking about being "in the military". The real military is that which is geared to killing people without whom all the rest are pointless.

All you have are assertions. You're a fool. Were you a medical orderly or a cook?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Were you a medical orderly or a cook?

Neither one.
I was a US Navy corpsman, a combat medic with the US Marines.
I served with a marine rifle company, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Desert Storm, among other places.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Well in that case you ought to know better and leave these things to those who are trained and paid to take the decisions and to accept responsibility for them and who, hopefully, know what is best from having the full picture.

An army of generals is a rabble.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I was speaking from personal experience.
I have served with gays and there was no problem.
Everyone knew they were gay and nobody cared.

Yes, I think the generals and the President are wrong on this issue.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mm, I would add that those who cared were ignorant bigots. What were they afraid of?

1 Reply

THE PRESIDENT HAS FALSELY CLAIMED HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE USA. THAT IS A HIGH CRIME AND MISDEMEANOR.

Quote:

Article II. Section 1. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

Article II. Section 1. The President shall, …
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II. Section 4. The President … shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I have no idea.
I dont understand why someones sexual preference should be a cause for concern at all, as long as its between consenting adults.

Trust me, in the field the last thing we worry about is someones sex life.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

Yes, I think the generals and the President are wrong on this issue.

Then you are saying that they are deliberately weakening the military. That's a serious charge mate. They should all be impeached tonight if that's the case. You don't want men serving in wars thinking that their best efforts are not as efficient as they might be--which translates easily enough into helping the enemy--I think--because of some chair bound bigots back home on ten times their money and going to parties everynight.

Are you off your head mm?

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

DADT was part of the military funding bill that Republicans blocked, as stated above.

As far as Obama's stand and why he is allowing DoJ to appeal, I found this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/14/dadt-repeal-obama-vows-to_n_763610.html#

Quote:

....

Berle urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "to do what it takes in the lame duck session (after the Nov. 2 election) to end 'don't ask, don't tell' legislatively."

Obama agreed.

Speaking at an event sponsored by entertainment networks MTV, BET and CMT, he said, "Congress explicitly passed a law that took away the power of the executive branch to end this policy." He called on the Senate to join the House in passing legislation that would let him end the ban.

"We have, I believe, enough votes in the Senate to go ahead and remove this constraint on me," he said. He added, "Anybody should be able to serve – and they shouldn't have to lie about who they are in order to serve."

The president did not discuss his administration's response to the judge's order.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president had been "very involved" in discussions about the judge's ruling, including holding meetings with the White House counsel's office to discuss the implications.

"I don't think we're deferring to Congress," Gibbs said. "The president has been active in encouraging and imploring Congress to do the right thing and end a harmful, discriminatory, unjust law."

A person in the government familiar with the case said the White House involvement in the Justice Department's handling of the case figured in the delay in responding to the judge's order.

This person, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's internal deliberations, said a couple of White House lawyers did not want to seek a court order that would temporarily suspend the judge's ruling. The source said the process was now back on track.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has warned of "enormous consequences" for troops if the court order is allowed to stand, saying the decision on whether to repeal the law should be made by Congress and not the courts.

Gates has said he wants more time to prepare for a circumstance in which, for the first time, gay members of the military could declare their sexual orientation without fear of dismissal. .......

So, it appears Congress, back when DADT was passed and signed into law, specifically wrote into the law that the Executive branch couldn't change it.

It also appears, from what I am reading, that Obama specifically wants Congress to do away with the law, rather than the courts.

I can see this being the right way to do it. If Congress does it, it is law. If Congress does it with a fairly balanced seating of Dems and Repubs, it is easier for the masses to digest. (specifically those that might be opposed) If the Courts do it, it is activism, gets appealed and mired in muck all the way to the Supreme Court with further delays, activism and political grandstanding.

And, with the understanding that it is going to change... Gates needs time to prepare.

I'm good with that.

1 Reply

@squinney,

Quote:

If the Courts do it, it is activism, gets appealed and mired in muck all the way to the Supreme Court with further delays, activism and political grandstanding.

You forgot the legal fees and the expense of an office building on the main drag full of eager beavers. Etc. Shame on you squinney. The key factor. It's where the "Courts"--you mean people sat up on high, were brought into the fold.

It's all in Rabelais. And he probably got it off some old Greek copies of stuff.

It was a "Court" that overturned Prop 8 and put evolution into Dover schoolrooms: which might be a more important matter in the longer run.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

So, do you understand why the generals are saying this will destroy cohesion of the troops?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

It was a "Court" that overturned Prop 8 and put evolution into Dover schoolrooms: which might be a more important matter in the longer run.

I think that you ought to at least try to get the facts right, Spendi. Evolution was in Dover schoolrooms. The school board tried to sneak ID into the mix by ignorantly suggesting that ID had some scientific merit.

They were properly and legally smacked down, hard, which is what ignorance of this manner needs.

1 Reply

@JTT,

We are discussing what Defense Secretary Robert Gates had said about courts.

Have their been any homosexual "marriages" in California since the homosexual judge struck down Prop 8.

And I don't know what goes off in Dover classrooms. It won't be what you read in the papers though. I was only making the point about courts. Which is that they only have standing if there's a general agreement. Have they got any Reichian Marxist fanatics teaching the subject yet because they damned well ought to have if they want to be scientific about it.

What definition of evolution are you referring to. Is it that one that children can be safely exposed to. The blue-stocking version.

1 Reply

Is this true, that the Obamas, most importantly Barrack Obama, do not actually have law licenses?

"Pres. Barack Obama – Editor of the Harvard Law Review – Has No Law License???"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2606537/posts

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Well in that case you ought to know better and leave these things to those who are trained and paid to take the decisions and to accept responsibility for them and who, hopefully, know what is best from having the full picture.

Yeah, that's sure worked out well for the millions of innocents the world over murdered by the US military, Spendi. And take responsibility for their war crimes, well, there's been none better, save for maybe the UK.

I forget. What prison is Tony Blair and his band of war criminals in again?

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Which is that they only have standing if there's a general agreement.

Piffle, Spendius.

Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 1954

Quote:

What definition of evolution are you referring to. Is it that one that children can be safely exposed to. The blue-stocking version.

The one that gives them the truth as opposed to the religious song and dance routine that you've frequently expressed is the best way to keep them in check.

0 Replies

@okie,

This lady is as big a nut case as you, Okie.

Quote:

Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any seaches for the Disciplinary actions ends quicky.

As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything.

As in, “there’s a block on that information” kind of thing.

She can tell just by how quickly an internet search is run whether there is a
coverup.

And "a block on that information"; that must have caused you to stream all over your computer screen.

See:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

You've asked, more than once, for the description of US troops in their forays abroad, MM.

Quote:

[Mark] Twain criticized U.S. intervention abroad, referring to its soldiers as "uniformed assassins" for their suppression of a native revolt in the Philippines.

(quote from article found at:)

http://able2know.org/topic/162778-1

Not all that much has changed in the 100 or so years since the massacres in the Philippines. One difference is that the US has recognized that using proxies to do its rape, torture and murder provides one more level in obscuring its evil.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know