Obama nominates openly gay man to lead Army

[Redfish]

So what limitations should we put on the 2% of people who have green eyes?

I happen to have green eyes so I strongly object to that notion, why not put limitations on blue eyes instead?

If you equate eye color to anal intercourse between two males, then you are a very confused person.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

This guy has already been in this sort of work for years. Successfully. His 'gayness' as a liability has already been shown to be non-existent.

Great, I hope he is successful.

The question in the OP was whether he was the most qualified for the job, or whether his appointment was some kind of PC statement from obama.

And when are you going to address the topic of the OP?

Its really not important enough to me to research his background and the backgrounds of all other candidates (I assume there were other candidates)

and there is the question that the OP asked. Is he the best qualified or did he get awarded that position based on his sexual preference. I find no reason to think that being gay is going to make someone less qualified to do a job than being straight.

I agree, and the biography that someone else posted does not convince me that he was the best qualified. So do you think it was the other criteria?

What I think is that obama picked him because of his sexuality, yet at the same time, he does appear to be capable of performing the job. He may not have been the best candidate, but he is not unqualified.
The argument by many is that his being gay is a dis-qualifier not his background. My argument is that his being gay does not affect his ability to do a job, His background might, but his sexual identity has nothing to do with it.

 

[Redfish]

Did you read his biography? Was he the most qualified for the job?

Was Rumsfeld the most qualified person for the job?

Normally that isn't even asked but because this guy happens to be gay it's suddenly important?

Rumsfeld was gay? Who knew?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So what limitations should we put on the 2% of people who have green eyes?

I happen to have green eyes so I strongly object to that notion, why not put limitations on blue eyes instead?

If you equate eye color to anal intercourse between two males, then you are a very confused person.

Until they try to make it a requirement that I let some guy run it up my one way street, Im not too concerned about anyone else that chooses to engage in directional violations.

 

[Redfish]

Great, I hope he is successful.

The question in the OP was whether he was the most qualified for the job, or whether his appointment was some kind of PC statement from obama.

And when are you going to address the topic of the OP?

Its really not important enough to me to research his background and the backgrounds of all other candidates (I assume there were other candidates)

and there is the question that the OP asked. Is he the best qualified or did he get awarded that position based on his sexual preference. I find no reason to think that being gay is going to make someone less qualified to do a job than being straight.

I agree, and the biography that someone else posted does not convince me that he was the best qualified. So do you think it was the other criteria?

What I think is that obama picked him because of his sexuality, yet at the same time, he does appear to be capable of performing the job. He may not have been the best candidate, but he is not unqualified.
The argument by many is that his being gay is a dis-qualifier not his background. My argument is that his being gay does not affect his ability to do a job, His background might, but his sexual identity has nothing to do with it.

I agree 100%

 

[Wildman]

Zone 2 posting rules

like you and every other libertard here care about RULES ??

 

[Redfish]

So what limitations should we put on the 2% of people who have green eyes?

I happen to have green eyes so I strongly object to that notion, why not put limitations on blue eyes instead?

If you equate eye color to anal intercourse between two males, then you are a very confused person.

Until they try to make it a requirement that I let some guy run it up my one way street, Im not too concerned about anyone else that chooses to engage in directional violations.

If you choose only to have sex with women, you are a bigot. Don't you know that?

 

[defcon4]

This guy has already been in this sort of work for years. Successfully. His 'gayness' as a liability has already been shown to be non-existent.

Great, I hope he is successful.

The question in the OP was whether he was the most qualified for the job, or whether his appointment was some kind of PC statement from obama.

And when are you going to address the topic of the OP?

Its really not important enough to me to research his background and the backgrounds of all other candidates (I assume there were other candidates)

and there is the question that the OP asked. Is he the best qualified or did he get awarded that position based on his sexual preference. I find no reason to think that being gay is going to make someone less qualified to do a job than being straight.

I agree, and the biography that someone else posted does not convince me that he was the best qualified. So do you think it was the other criteria?

The biography quoted shows 2 years "experience" as an Obama political appointee..

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So what limitations should we put on the 2% of people who have green eyes?

I happen to have green eyes so I strongly object to that notion, why not put limitations on blue eyes instead?

If you equate eye color to anal intercourse between two males, then you are a very confused person.

Until they try to make it a requirement that I let some guy run it up my one way street, Im not too concerned about anyone else that chooses to engage in directional violations.

If you choose only to have sex with women, you are a bigot. Don't you know that?

you are making assumptions about me.
how do you know Im not gay, bi, transsexual or straight? (P.S. even if I were gay, there would be one hell of a fight before someone ran their pole up my butt)

 

[defcon4]

Did you read his biography? Was he the most qualified for the job?

Was Rumsfeld the most qualified person for the job?

Normally that isn't even asked but because this guy happens to be gay it's suddenly important?

no, it is not important... what important is that he has 2 year experience as an Obama political appointee. The question was if there were some more qualified persons to lead the largest branch of the US military

 

[Wildman]

Terms of Service..Something that took me two or three years to observe...

don't you really mean LEARN??

 

[NYcarbineer]

This guy has already been in this sort of work for years. Successfully. His 'gayness' as a liability has already been shown to be non-existent.

Great, I hope he is successful.

The question in the OP was whether he was the most qualified for the job, or whether his appointment was some kind of PC statement from obama.

Did you read his biography? Was he the most qualified for the job?

Was Rumsfeld the most qualified person for the job?

Normally that isn't even asked but because this guy happens to be gay it's suddenly important?

no, it is not important... what important is that he has 2 year experience as an Obama political appointee. The question was if there were some more qualified persons to lead the largest branch of the US military

No, he has about 20 years experience in defense/security related areas.

 

[konradv]

Rumsfeld was gay? Who knew?

Why so surprised? Look who picked him!

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Rumsfeld was gay? Who knew?

Who cares if Rummie is a gay moron or a heterosexual moron, nobody cared about his qualifications

The point is that you're just obsessed about qualifications all of a sudden because the candidate is gay. All those appointments are done for political reasons anyway, maybe his best qualification is being a loyal democratic operative for years.

 

[defcon4]

Rumsfeld was gay? Who knew?

Who cares if Rummie is a gay moron or a heterosexual moron, nobody cared about his qualifications

The point is that you're just obsessed about qualifications all of a sudden because the candidate is gay. All those appointments are done for political reasons anyway, maybe his best qualification is being a loyal democratic operative for years.

Yep....sometimes even you make some sense... you are my favored fairy (again, don't read anything into it what's not there... I just put up with you, that's what it meant)

 

[Jantje_Smit]

no, it is not important... what important is that he has 2 year experience as an Obama political appointee. The question was if there were some more qualified persons to lead the largest branch of the US military

Well, you think being a political appointee is a qualification?

If that's the case you should just trust Obama with his selection.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

no, it is not important... what important is that he has 2 year experience as an Obama political appointee. The question was if there were some more qualified persons to lead the largest branch of the US military

Well, you think being a political appointee is a qualification?

If that's the case you should just trust Obama with his selection.

I don't trust obama's judgement or motives. I would have a problem with anyone he appointed. rump ranger or not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So what limitations should we put on the 2% of people who have green eyes?

I happen to have green eyes so I strongly object to that notion, why not put limitations on blue eyes instead?

If you equate eye color to anal intercourse between two males, then you are a very confused person.

You're the one who tried to establish small percentage as abnormality.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So what limitations should we put on the 2% of people who have green eyes?

I happen to have green eyes so I strongly object to that notion, why not put limitations on blue eyes instead?

If you equate eye color to anal intercourse between two males, then you are a very confused person.

You're the one who tried to establish small percentage as abnormality.

There is no doubt that gay is abnormal.
the question is if that makes them less qualified to do a job or act in a way that is in societies best interest, and that answer to that is no, it does not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fanning has served as the deputy undersecretary and deputy chief management officer for the Department of the Navy, deputy director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, undersecretary of the Air Force, and later as the acting U.S. secretary of the Air Force. Most recently he served as chief of staff to the secretary of Defense and acting undersecretary of the Army.

He does not sound like he is totally without a clue how things work.
It would appear that he does have at least minimal qualifications to do the job.
Now providing he does the job as required and with the best interest of the country in mind, what difference does it make who he chooses to commit himself to in a personal relationship.

If he keeps his sexuality out of his job, fine. Do you really think he will do that?

Like what? Not showing up with his partner at a social gathering of his co-workers, where most of them are accompanied by their opposite sex spouses and significant others?

I don't care if he takes his boyfriend to a social gathering. But I don't want him having a pro-gay agenda as part of being secretary of the army.

Tell us what the single most disturbing (to you) component of the 'pro-gay agenda' is.

Its intolerance of anyone who disagrees with it and its open attack on Christianity.


I don't give a flying shit what two adults do in private. But I don't want those activities displayed on the streets as they are in SFO and occaisionally here in NOLA.

So as long as this guy doesn't ban Christians from serving in the Army or go naked in a parade,

you can shut up about him?