Obama Does It Again. He Jumps On An Issue That Will Soon Blow Up In His Face

[Sallow]

I'm not aware of the facts of the case...but the Cambridge police acted stupidly.

With a track record like the above nothing the clown in chief says should surprise anyone.

They did act stupidly.

They should have been fired.

Arresting a man for breaking into his own house?

Amazing.

 

[mudwhistle]

I'm not aware of the facts of the case...but the Cambridge police acted stupidly.

With a track record like the above nothing the clown in chief says should surprise anyone.

They did act stupidly.

They should have been fired.

Arresting a man for breaking into his own house?

Amazing.

They arrested him for being an asshole, a racist asshole at that.

Explain how the cops know you live where you claim to live?

Is it written on your forehead?

Do you think smarting off to cops will make them more understanding of you?

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not aware of the facts of the case...but the Cambridge police acted stupidly.

With a track record like the above nothing the clown in chief says should surprise anyone.

They did act stupidly.

They should have been fired.

Arresting a man for breaking into his own house?

Amazing.

how were the cops to know it was his own house?
Becuase he said so?
He tried that and they refused to accept it...
So they asked him for ID to prove it.
And that was when it got ugly.

SO I am curious...

A man breaks into your home. Your neighbor calls the cops. The cops come, the man answers the door and claims it is his own house. They ask for ID as proof and he refuses to show it and the cops, sensing they angered the guy, opt to believe him and leave.

He takes all of your stuff and you find out how the cops handled it.

Would you say THEY acted stupidly as well?

If yes, then exactly what is the right protocol?

 

[JoeB131]

DADT was a horrible policy in that it lacked clarity... but the guy was still a liar. And that's what people were booing.

Unless you were the one doing the booing in that audience, I don't think you're in any position to say.[/QUOTE]

They didn't boo him when he said he was gay, they booed him when he said the policy 'forced him to lie".

So, yeah, I can.

 

[JoeB131]

That's erroneous. It's not against the code of conduct already?

sure it is.

And how many guys are going to rush into the C.O.'s office and say, "Private Snuffy tried to sodomize me in the shower, Sir!"

Hell, no. He's going to beat the ever living snot out of Private Snuffy. Then he's going to be up on charges, too. That's human nature, guy.

And of course, when the CO actually tries to bring Snuffy up on charges, just you watch, the ACLU and such will rush in and brand him a homophobe and tarnish his career.

Again, DADT was a bad policy because it confused the issue. This just makes it a bit worse.

I wonder how often have you spoke up about and against the RAMPANT rape of women that has gone on, and continues to exist in the military...?

(DV) The Rape, Assault and Harassment of Women in the Military

Things that make me go Hmmm.....!!!

She wants to play lumberjack, she needs to hold up her end of the log.

Personally, I think the policies of letting women in the service, but then lowering the physcial, discpilinary and other standards just for them is a little silly.

But, yeah, if there's rape, they ought to be prosecuted. That wasn't my point. A female service member might go to the CO, or she might not.

A male service member who is assaulted is going to beat the person to death, or his buddies will.