PDA

View Full Version : Mattis SECDEF Nomination Testimony



Mjölnir
01-13-2017, 09:14 AM
Watched the entirety of his testimony ... very interesting back and forth on things.

I think people expecting 'Mad Dog', to come in and throw out homosexuals or reverse policies on LGBT service members will not like what I sense from Mattis:


Under questioning from Sens. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, and Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, Mattis said he would support the current policy on women in combat roles and gays serving openly.

"I have no plan to oppose women in any aspect of our military," Mattis said. On gays in the military, Mattis told Gillibrand, "Frankly, Senator, I've never cared about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with."

In many ways Mattis' views align with what I get the sense is Trump's ideology -- neither conservative nor liberal ... but pragmatic & realistic.

His written response to submitted questions is here:

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Mattis%20APQ%20Responses_01-12-17.pdf

sandsjames
01-13-2017, 11:13 AM
Watched the entirety of his testimony ...

Really? You should find some better hobbies...or did you watch it on government time? Either way...good lord man...

Mjölnir
01-13-2017, 11:23 AM
Really? You should find some better hobbies...or did you watch it on government time? Either way...good lord man...

I woke up about 0130, watched it on the computer while I was doing some gaming (dual screens).

I do think it is important to pay attention to some of this, in part because I am a military professional at the middle management point and many have to execute the policies of this SECDEF, in part because I carry a Legislative Affairs AQD (our version of an officer AFSC) and provide some LegAffairs support to our ISIC ...

efmbman
01-13-2017, 11:28 AM
I didn't watch it all, but I liked parts I did see - in particular:

"Senator, I've never come into a job with a preformed agenda of changing anything," Mattis said. "I come in assuming people before me deserve respect for the job they did and the decisions they made."

I also liked that when asked about monitoring the Iran nuclear deal, he replied that he is not privy to the entire deal nor is he familiar with the monitoring capabilities. He replied that he could not answer that question until he was briefed in to that compartment. He is wise enough to know what he doesn't know and admit it.

sandsjames
01-13-2017, 01:02 PM
I woke up about 0130, watched it on the computer while I was doing some gaming (dual screens). You may want to see a doctor about an addiction...hope it's at least a good game.


I do think it is important to pay attention to some of this, in part because I am a military professional at the middle management point and many have to execute the policies of this SECDEF, in part because I carry a Legislative Affairs AQD (our version of an officer AFSC) and provide some LegAffairs support to our ISIC ...I used to think it was important. However, I'm sure you know as well as the next guy that testimonies like this are just a forum for a high ranking government official to give canned answers to cover his own ass. Nothing productive, really. I listed to about 2 minutes of the SecDef stuff and it was very clear that it was all about giving spoon fed answers from the transition team to purposely counter a lot of Trump's comments in order to make the people feel a little more at ease.

If that's the sort of thing you like then you can come over to my place in the spring and watch the grass grow and paint dry.

sandsjames
01-13-2017, 01:03 PM
I also liked that when asked about monitoring the Iran nuclear deal, he replied that he is not privy to the entire deal nor is he familiar with the monitoring capabilities. He replied that he could not answer that question until he was briefed in to that compartment. He is wise enough to know what he doesn't know and admit it.

I took it more as he was simply giving the prudent political answer so that he wouldn't actually have to voice his opinion. If you like that sort of things then you must be a huge fan of all politicians.

Mjölnir
01-13-2017, 01:13 PM
You may want to see a doctor about an addiction...hope it's at least a good game.

Waking up at 0130 was due to my daughter coming down to ask if I could get her water ... couldn't go back to sleep. As good of a game as it is (Lord of the Rings Online), it isn't that good.

[QUOTE=sandsjames;369212]I used to think it was important. However, I'm sure you know as well as the next guy that testimonies like this are just a forum for a high ranking government official to give canned answers to cover his own ass. Nothing productive, really. I listed to about 2 minutes of the SecDef stuff and it was very clear that it was all about giving spoon fed answers from the transition team to purposely counter a lot of Trump's comments in order to make the people feel a little more at ease.

Much of Congressional testimony is theater. While I would bet money that Mattis' spent time with the transition team to work on where he aligns and differs with DJT, some of his differences with DJT are significant ... so am interested in where the policy dust settles. It may be, it may not. I was particularly interested on which Dem would ask about LGBT issues, and how they would frame it. Having worked on the Hill I find this stuff interesting. Likely when I retire I won't pay much attention because it won't impact me as much; right now it does.


If that's the sort of thing you like then you can come over to my place in the spring and watch the grass grow and paint dry.

We could talk DC vs Marvel ... would be grand :)

sandsjames
01-13-2017, 01:22 PM
We could talk DC vs Marvel ... would be grand :)I like both apples and oranges so there's really no "vs" (though DC is killing Marvel in the comics right now).

Detective, Batman, Superman, Action, and Titans are amazing. So is Justice League vs Suicide Squad. All Marvel has going for it really is Wolverine, Unworthy Thor and, surprisingly, Avengers.

Bos Mutus
01-13-2017, 01:25 PM
I didn't watch it all, but I liked parts I did see - in particular:

"Senator, I've never come into a job with a preformed agenda of changing anything," Mattis said. "I come in assuming people before me deserve respect for the job they did and the decisions they made."

I also liked that when asked about monitoring the Iran nuclear deal, he replied that he is not privy to the entire deal nor is he familiar with the monitoring capabilities. He replied that he could not answer that question until he was briefed in to that compartment. He is wise enough to know what he doesn't know and admit it.

I didn't watch any of it.

But, these two replies seem more like non-answers than answers.

Watched only a few minutes of Tillerson's hearing when Rubio was grilling him on Putin and trying to make him say Putin was a bad guy and all Tillerson would say was, "I don't have the information to make that judgement."

Mjölnir
01-13-2017, 01:27 PM
All Marvel has going for it really is Unworthy Thor, Wolverine, and surprisingly, Avengers.

Fixed that

sandsjames
01-13-2017, 01:30 PM
Fixed that

It's really good, isn't it?

Mjölnir
01-13-2017, 01:42 PM
I didn't watch any of it.

But, these two replies seem more like non-answers than answers.

Watched only a few minutes of Tillerson's hearing when Rubio was grilling him on Putin and trying to make him say Putin was a bad guy and all Tillerson would say was, "I don't have the information to make that judgement."

I don't take them as non-answers. I think he is signaling that he doesn't care to separate LGBT servicemembers, doesn't care to promote anything. Do your job, be professional ... what consenting adults do wasn't his concern as a Marine Infantry Officer, doesn't' seem it will be as SECDEF

Mjölnir
01-13-2017, 01:44 PM
It's really good, isn't it?

It is ... I think the countdown is on for Mjölnir to come back to papa.

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/mjolnir.gif?w=620&h=328&crop=1

Bos Mutus
01-13-2017, 02:20 PM
I don't take them as non-answers. I think he is signaling that he doesn't care to separate LGBT servicemembers, doesn't care to promote anything. Do your job, be professional ... what consenting adults do wasn't his concern as a Marine Infantry Officer, doesn't' seem it will be as SECDEF

I was referring to the two that I quoted.

I agree the LGBT answer was a good answer....at least showed how he felt about the issue.

The other two were basically... I don't have any plans, and I don't have the information to provide an answer.

garhkal
01-13-2017, 06:36 PM
I do feel kinda irked about his LGBTQRS statement, imo that is PART of why so many i know dislike how the military is going (and has been going), it is being too used as a social experiment..

Mjölnir
01-13-2017, 06:47 PM
I do feel kinda irked about his LGBTQRS statement, imo that is PART of why so many i know dislike how the military is going (and has been going), it is being too used as a social experiment..

You are irked he doesn't care what consenting adults do?

sandsjames
01-13-2017, 07:19 PM
You are irked he doesn't care what consenting adults do?

Oh dear God...you do realize this is the type of condescending statements that put Trump in office, right? Stated in a way that makes it sound as though there's only one right choice on this and that the views of anyone who doesn't fall into line with an "open mind" are irrelevant?

Mjölnir
01-13-2017, 07:54 PM
Oh dear God...you do realize this is the type of condescending statements that put Trump in office, right? Stated in a way that makes it sound as though there's only one right choice on this and that the views of anyone who doesn't fall into line with an "open mind" are irrelevant?

It is a little condescending. I don't understand being irked that someone else is not concerned with what adults do behind closed doors -- irked by the lack of someone else being irked?

sandsjames
01-13-2017, 08:29 PM
It is a little condescending. I don't understand being irked that someone else is not concerned with what adults do behind closed doors -- irked by the lack of someone else being irked?

I don't care what people do behind closed doors, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's valid and ok for others to have issues with it and for them to want their leaders to share their ideals/morals/concerns.

As is posted in someone's sig line, if being liberal is so great then why do people have to be forced to do it?

Some people love diversity and freedom of choice until someone disagrees with them. The hypocrisy of views like this is so overt, yet so accepted.

Mjölnir
01-13-2017, 09:09 PM
I don't care what people do behind closed doors, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's valid and ok for others to have issues with it and for them to want their leaders to share their ideals/morals/concerns.

As is posted in someone's sig line, if being liberal is so great then why do people have to be forced to do it?

Some people love diversity and freedom of choice until someone disagrees with them. The hypocrisy of views like this is so overt, yet so accepted.

Mostly agree, having issue with it is different than being irked (IMO). I am not a proponent of LGBT issues, on a personal, moral level I don't agree with it; but ... it isn't my business if someone isn't forcing it on me; at the same time, I don't think we should discriminate against them either, again ... it is their personal life.

Mattis, from what I have heard does not drink alcohol, is an avid reader of military history (has a 7,000 volume personal library), wakes every day at 0400 to exercise. If he has a moral objection to drinking alcohol should he impose that on the DoD? If he stated that every member of the DoD should have a personal military library, PT at 0400 because that is how he lives his life would that be okay? Would it be okay for him to throw all LGBT service members out, and any who drinks ... regardless if they drink alcohol within the bounds of the law or not? Of course not.

I agree, if being liberal is so great, then why force people into it? If being conservative is so much better, why force that onto people as well? I am either both or neither because my views don't align well with one side or the other depending on the issue.

I am not irked by garhkal being "irked" ... I don't understand getting irked, that a second person is not irked, by what a third and forth person do in private. Do we want the government to be smaller, leave people alone, respect their rights, their privacy allow freedom and liberty for it's citizens ... except those whose lives we don't like ... then be as intrusive as we can? That is no less hypocritical than what you are describing.

Bos Mutus
01-13-2017, 09:46 PM
I do feel kinda irked about his LGBTQRS statement, imo that is PART of why so many i know dislike how the military is going (and has been going), it is being too used as a social experiment..

Allowing LGBT people to serve was no experiment...the military was probably the last institution that discriminated so blantantly against them.

At this point...wouldn't it be a social experiment to kick them out again? They've been serving relatively incident-free for how many years now?

sandsjames
01-13-2017, 10:03 PM
I am not irked by garhkal being "irked" ... I don't understand getting irked, that a second person is not irked, by what a third and forth person do in private. Do we want the government to be smaller, leave people alone, respect their rights, their privacy allow freedom and liberty for it's citizens ... except those whose lives we don't like ... then be as intrusive as we can? That is no less hypocritical than what you are describing.

The "irking" (is that the new word that's replacing "outrage") is about people being forced to remain silent about issues. I don't care if Mattis is ok with gays or not, but he shouldn't have to hold his tongue. What irks me is the censorship that takes place in order to not appear homophobic.

As far as drinking and PT...I'm not sure what military you've been in but I've been involved in several instances where drinking was prohibited and PT at ungodly hours was mandatory.

For you to pretend that the military is unable to impose stuff on us and intrude in our lives makes me wonder if you've actually been around people throughout your career, or if you've just been stationed at some satellite outpost on a remote island.

sandsjames
01-13-2017, 10:13 PM
Allowing LGBT people to serve was no experiment...the military was probably the last institution that discriminated so blantantly against them. It was definitely an experiment that is being used as the basis for allowing the trans community to waste time on profiles and waivers while they "transition". That's exactly what makes it an experiment. Now we'll have to wait to see what's next.


At this point...wouldn't it be a social experiment to kick them out again? They've been serving relatively incident-free for how many years now?No need to kick them out...that doesn't mean it wasn't an experiment.

The military discriminates about everything. Age, sex, weight, married/single, etc. To pretend otherwise is naive.

Mjölnir
01-13-2017, 10:33 PM
The "irking" (is that the new word that's replacing "outrage") is about people being forced to remain silent about issues. I don't care if Mattis is ok with gays or not, but he shouldn't have to hold his tongue. What irks me is the censorship that takes place in order to not appear homophobic.

If that is the case, I misinterpreted "irk".


As far as drinking and PT...I'm not sure what military you've been in but I've been involved in several instances where drinking was prohibited and PT at ungodly hours was mandatory.

For you to pretend that the military is unable to impose stuff on us and intrude in our lives makes me wonder if you've actually been around people throughout your career, or if you've just been stationed at some satellite outpost on a remote island.

I know the military can impose those things, as far as I know the military has not had a department wide prohibition on drinking alcohol since ... Prohibition. That is very different than a ban in a training environment, deployment site or other specific location. Same with PT, it may become very early, very late etc. the bigger point being that it would not be right for him to impose his personal life onto everyone in the DoD, it isn't about the examples which in this or that specific instance counter the general point.

But, you are sorta right, my first duty station was a remote satellite location on a remote island -- Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Bos Mutus
01-13-2017, 11:22 PM
It was definitely an experiment that is being used as the basis for allowing the trans community to waste time on profiles and waivers while they "transition". That's exactly what makes it an experiment.

Gays didn't need any of that.


Now we'll have to wait to see what's next.

No need to kick them out...that doesn't mean it wasn't an experiment.

The military discriminates about everything. Age, sex, weight, married/single, etc. To pretend otherwise is naive.

Also doesn't mean that every change in policy is a "social experiment"

waveshaper2
01-13-2017, 11:42 PM
I would like to hear General Mattis side of story on this particular incident;

This incident happened on 5 Dec 2001 (Ref; for starters read the book-The Only Thing Worth Dying For: How Eleven Green Berets Fought for a New Afghanistan). Note; take this info with a grain of salt because it's only one side of the story.
General Mattis was in charge of Rhino LZ (FOB Rhino) with about 1,000 troops and lots of helicopter. The Special Forces team in need of medevac was Operational Detachment Alpha 574 (ODA 574) A.K.A. Codenamed "Texas 12" (Texas One-Two) and they were located about 45 minutes (by helicopter) from Rhino LZ (FOB Rhino). Once the USAF was finally notified of the situation/casualties of ODA574 they responded from Pakistan (3 hours away by helicopter) and rescued these forces.

1. Excerpt from the attempt to get General Mattis (Commander of Rhino LZ) to help rescue the wounded ODA574 SF troops on 5 Dec 2001/long;
“Well, if they’ve taken fire,” said the general, “and you can’t tell me definitively how they got all scuffed up, I’m not going to send anything until you can assure me that the situation on the ground is secure.” Mattis went on to explain that there were nearly a thousand Marines at Camp Rhino for him to worry about, and he was not willing to dilute base security and risk sending his air squadron on a dangerous daylight mission just to assist an unknown number of casualties.

Cairnes raced back to consult with Lee, who was his third in command, and his second-in-command, Chief Warrant Officer Tom Leithead, both of whom were infuriated. They could understand why Mattis wouldn’t send his helicopters, but no one in the tent could fathom why he wouldn’t do something to help their guys. “Where’s the love from the Marines?” said another member of the team. “They’re supposed to be frothing at the mouth for this kind of sxxt.”

The Green Berets continued to monitor the radio and berate the Marines: “These helicopters outside would be airborne already if it were Marines that were bleeding,” said the B-team’s communications sergeant.

“Just heard,” said the commo sergeant. “One American KIA, three critically wounded.” For the past week, Lee and Leithead had been briefing Mattis and found him a fairly personable guy. He probably just needs a little prodding in the right direction, thought Lee. Turning to Leithead, he said,

“Let’s go have a little talk with the general.”

“I’m all for that,” said Leithead, and the two hurried to the Marine command post some 20 minutes after Mattis had declined Cairnes’ request. Inside, the expressions on the faces of Mattis’ staff showed their frustration and embarrassment. One Marine glanced away as they walked past, unable to meet their eyes.

Mattis greeted the two Green Berets at the heavy wood door that led into his spartan concrete-floored office. He held a military-issue canteen cup filled with coffee in his left hand and gestured them inside with the other. After closing the door to a crack, he sat down at a small writing desk where a map was laid out.

“Let’s hear it,” said Mattis.

“Sir,” said Lee, “we’ve got reports of mass casualties, and word is they expect the numbers to continue to rise. You are the closest American with the ability to respond.”

“Do you have an update on how they got all scuffed up? Are they still in contact?”

“With all due respect,” said Leithead, “we think that’s irrelevant.”

“I hear you, but no, I’m not sending a rescue mission,” Mattis said. “We. Don’t. Know. The situation.”

“The situation, sir,” said Lee, “is that Americans are dying. And they need your help.”

“Look, when I have fighters over the scene so that I’ve got air superiority, then I’ll send choppers. That, or we wait till nightfall.”

Exchanging a look with Leithead, Lee said, “That’s not good enough, sir.”

Standing up, the general cleared his throat. “Sergeant,” Mattis called to his sergeant at arms, positioned outside the office. “We’re done. Escort these men out of here.”

Without another word, Lee and Leithead walked out of the office toward the door to the command post, again passing Marines who wouldn’t make eye contact. Behind them, they heard Mattis say, “ Nobodygets into my office.”

Back outside, Lee said, “Who’s going to get our guys out of there?”

“Besides here, the only helicopters are at K2 and J-Bad. Uzbekistan and Pakistan. They’re at least three hours away, and that’s if they’re ready to launch.”

They looked to their left, at the rows of Marine helicopters parked along the desert airstrip.

“What a joke,” said Lee.

2. Excerpt on USAF response to this incident; Two of Captain Amerine’s men were killed instantly. Another died later that day. The rest, including the captain himself, were wounded but survived. At least twenty-five of Karzai’s guerrillas were also killed and fifty wounded; Karzai was only slightly nicked. More would have died were it not for the prompt response of Air Force PJ’s (Pararescue Jumpers) in Pakistan, who hopped aboard two MH-53J Pave Low III heavy-lift helicopters to evacuate the casualties. For ODA574 the war was now over.

sandsjames
01-14-2017, 12:24 AM
Gays didn't need any of that. They didn't need it. They WERE it. They were the first step to desensitizing so that further steps would seem logical. If there had been problems and if it had a negative effect then the trans issues would never have been brought up at all. But, since it went relatively smooth, there was far less hesitation it making it ok for people to get their bodies mutilated on the taxpayer dollar.




Also doesn't mean that every change in policy is a "social experiment"Not sure anyone said it was.

garhkal
01-14-2017, 05:12 AM
You are irked he doesn't care what consenting adults do?

If they wanna keep it in the confines of their own home, go for it.
Where i have the issue is when they bring it into the open and expect me to not just accept their lifestyle, but condone or even celebrate it..


I don't care what people do behind closed doors, but that doesn't mean I don't think it's valid and ok for others to have issues with it and for them to want their leaders to share their ideals/morals/concerns.

As is posted in someone's sig line, if being liberal is so great then why do people have to be forced to do it?

Some people love diversity and freedom of choice until someone disagrees with them. The hypocrisy of views like this is so overt, yet so accepted.

Additionally, if liberals are supposedly about inclusiveness, why is it THEY are the ones showing the most intolerance around?



But, since it went relatively smooth, there was far less hesitation it making it ok for people to get their bodies mutilated on the taxpayer dollar.

IMO part of the reason it 'went smooth' was anyone who might have objected were too SCARED to speak out for fear of getting EO on their cases, or their command marking them down on their evals.. So everyone grinned and beared it..

Mjölnir
01-14-2017, 08:08 AM
If they wanna keep it in the confines of their own home, go for it.
Where i have the issue is when they bring it into the open and expect me to not just accept their lifestyle, but condone or even celebrate it..

Fair enough and a good point. I think most people want acceptance some expect acceptance but no policy can compel acceptance (which cannot truly be forced or enforced -- cannot really know what is in your mind and heart) what can be done and is legal and IMO correct is to prohibit discriminatory or harassing behavior (which can be enforced).

ie. I have attended the required training sessions for the transgender roll out training, I have conducted some of the training ... I have not once attended and LGBTQ month event, or luncheon ...

sandsjames
01-14-2017, 12:54 PM
ie. I have attended the required training sessions for the transgender roll out training, I have conducted some of the training ... Don't you think the fact that there are required training sessions for how to deal with stuff says something?

Mjölnir
01-14-2017, 03:07 PM
Don't you think the fact that there are required training sessions for how to deal with stuff says something?

It says a lot. I don't think though that once the decision to allow LGBT service members to serve that required (in person) training on what the policies are is a bad idea.

My advice in our sessions on the policy: being an ass to people because that is your personality will limit you personally and possibly professionally; being an ass to people because you are discriminating will definitely limit you professionally and depending on what you do may violate the law.

sandsjames
01-14-2017, 06:05 PM
It says a lot. I don't think though that once the decision to allow LGBT service members to serve that required (in person) training on what the policies are is a bad idea.

My advice in our sessions on the policy: being an ass to people because that is your personality will limit you personally and possibly professionally; being an ass to people because you are discriminating will definitely limit you professionally and depending on what you do may violate the law.

Sure...but ultimately what it proves is that the lifestyle is abnormal. Now if training were simply to treat everyone with respect no matter who they are then it might be ok. However, the training itself creates a situation which causes discrimination. Anytime one is asked to give someone else special treatment it's going to create resentment. All those kinds of training tell people that they have to give special treatment or else they'll get in trouble. In what world does that create inclusion?

What we're being asked to do is accept working with mentally ill people without questioning it or being label "phobic". There is extensive research showing that transgenders suffer from serious mental issues and they're being thrown in the field with everyone else. How is this not counter to everything we learn about good order and discipline?

Mjölnir
01-14-2017, 06:12 PM
Sure...but ultimately what it proves is that the lifestyle is abnormal. Now if training were simply to treat everyone with respect no matter who they are then it might be ok. However, the training itself creates a situation which causes discrimination. Anytime one is asked to give someone else special treatment it's going to create resentment. All those kinds of training tell people that they have to give special treatment or else they'll get in trouble. In what world does that create inclusion?

Actually the training is on the policy, definitions (gender, transgender, transition), etc. Not about special treatment, you actually are supposed to treat people the same.

I would much prefer we provide this training so that everyone knows what the baseline is.

sandsjames
01-14-2017, 06:15 PM
Actually the training is on the policy, definitions (gender, transgender, transition), etc. Not about special treatment, you actually are supposed to treat people the same.

I would much prefer we provide this training so that everyone knows what the baseline is.

Right...treat people the same. But if I treat gays and transgender the SAME as I treat the rest of my friends and coworkers I'd end up in trouble. I can make all sorts of comments to the majority of my coworkers without any worries about saying something that might offend them. However, I am forced to treat this "new normal" differently. So what you meant to say is that we're supposed to treat everyone the same as long as WE change everything about how a NORMAL person interacts with other NORMAL people.

In essence, we are forced to treat gays and transgender different than we treat everyone else.

Mjölnir
01-14-2017, 06:22 PM
Right...treat people the same. But if I treat gays and transgender the SAME as I treat the rest of my friends and coworkers I'd end up in trouble. I can make all sorts of comments to the majority of my coworkers without any worries about saying something that might offend them. However, I am forced to treat this "new normal" differently. So what you meant to say is that we're supposed to treat everyone the same as long as WE change everything about how a NORMAL person interacts with other NORMAL people.

Sorta. There is a baseline of treatment that everyone should expect in the workspace.

You may have friends you work with, probably the coworkers who you are more familiar with and that you are referring, to, that is fine. But, that baseline exists and is there ... which does mean if you are familiar with everyone in the space except one person (regardless if it is because they are gay, black, white, Muslim, Jewish etc.) and the familiar tone of the workspace would be offensive to a reasonable person and below that baseline ... then yeah ... you have to adjust. The argument could also be made that just because everyone in the space gets along doesn't mean it is an unprofessional environment ... period. Just because "it doesn't bother any of us" doesn't work, if it is below that common baseline ...

Edit: No, you don't have to treat everyone the same, there is a baseline of basic conduct. You can be more familiar, friendly etc. But you can't discriminate ... Managers, leaders etc. have to provide equal opportunity, but cannot guarantee equal outcome.

sandsjames
01-14-2017, 06:34 PM
Sorta. There is a baseline of treatment that everyone should expect in the workspace.

You may have friends you work with, probably the coworkers who you are more familiar with and that you are referring, to, that is fine. But, that baseline exists and is there ... which does mean if you are familiar with everyone in the space except one person (regardless if it is because they are gay, black, white, Muslim, Jewish etc.) and the familiar tone of the workspace would be offensive to a reasonable person and below that baseline ... then yeah ... you have to adjust. The argument could also be made that just because everyone in the space gets along doesn't mean it is an unprofessional environment ... period. Just because "it doesn't bother any of us" doesn't work, if it is below that common baseline ...

Problem is the baseline keeps moving and the majority are expected to adjust to the minority.

Walking on eggshells doesn't create a productive work environment. I'm sure you must realize that after every single one of these "training" seminars we attend, whether it be resiliency, suicide awareness, SAPR, DUI, etc, 98% of the people walk out making jokes about everything that was just "taught". It does nothing except, as I stated before, create resentment. Whether that's what SHOULD happen or not is irrelevant. The reality is that any time a person has to pay such close attention to words they use it's going to create an uncomfortable work environment. But I guess it's ok for 20 people to be uncomfortable as long as the 1 oddball is comfortable.

Mjölnir
01-14-2017, 06:47 PM
Problem is the baseline keeps moving and the majority are expected to adjust to the minority.

Walking on eggshells doesn't create a productive work environment. I'm sure you must realize that after every single one of these "training" seminars we attend, whether it be resiliency, suicide awareness, SAPR, DUI, etc, 98% of the people walk out making jokes about everything that was just "taught". It does nothing except, as I stated before, create resentment. Whether that's what SHOULD happen or not is irrelevant. The reality is that any time a person has to pay such close attention to words they use it's going to create an uncomfortable work environment. But I guess it's ok for 20 people to be uncomfortable as long as the 1 oddball is comfortable.

I would disagree, the baseline for being a decent person to those you work with hasn't really changed, we have just codified that those groups that it used to be okay to marginalize or discriminate against aren't okay to treat poorly.

Definitely people walk out and make jokes, probably less than 98% ... maybe 97%.

The thing is, for a very long time, in many workplaces in the military it was okay to let "boys be boys" which worked when it was okay in and out of the military for people to bash gays, blacks, women etc. Now, that environment isn't considered okay ... and if that means that 20 people have to clean up their language or their jokes ... that is what they have to do. To reverse the situation if 20 people in the shop were gay and there was 1 heterosexual ... there is a baseline of behavior and if that 1 straight person is not treated at that baseline ... that is just as wrong. Now, that "one person" whether normal or oddball, has to adhere to the reasonable person standard ... just because they are offended, doesn't mean those 20 people were necessarily wrong ... we all know there are overly sensitive 'snowflakes' on both sides of the spectrum; overly sensitive and easily offended by things that a reasonable person would not be -- that is the point of baseline training -- to let people know what is reasonable ... and what is not.


If they want to work in an environment where unreasonable conduct or over sensitivity is okay, they do have the option of not staying in the military, or if a GS just quitting.

sandsjames
01-14-2017, 06:59 PM
I would disagree, the baseline for being a decent person to those you work with hasn't really changed, we have just codified that those groups that it used to be okay to marginalize or discriminate against aren't okay to treat poorly.

Definitely people walk out and make jokes, probably less than 98% ... maybe 97%.

The thing is, for a very long time, in many workplaces in the military it was okay to let "boys be boys" which worked when it was okay in and out of the military for people to bash gays, blacks, women etc. Now, that environment isn't considered okay ... and if that means that 20 people have to clean up their language or their jokes ... that is what they have to do. To reverse the situation if 20 people in the shop were gay and there was 1 heterosexual ... there is a baseline of behavior and if that 1 straight person is not treated at that baseline ... that is just as wrong. Now, that "one person" whether normal or oddball, has to adhere to the reasonable person standard ... just because they are offended, doesn't mean those 20 people were necessarily wrong ... we all know there are overly sensitive 'snowflakes' on both sides of the spectrum; overly sensitive and easily offended by things that a reasonable person would not be -- that is the point of baseline training -- to let people know what is reasonable ... and what is not.


If they want to work in an environment where unreasonable conduct or over sensitivity is okay, they do have the option of not staying in the military, or if a GS just quitting.

It's reasonable to be able to expect to here jokes about the things that make you stick out. I was always the nerdy guy with glasses and I welcomed the jokes because it shows that you're part of the group. We have one female who works in our office and she's constantly hearing jokes about being in the kitchen, etc...most of the time she instigates it. We tease our boss about coming over and doing our landscaping (he's Mexican) and he gives it right back. This stuff is NORMAL. But we're told that shouldn't be happening. You can continue to take the stance that you are required to take but we all know what actually takes place. We also all know that the training is, dare I say, gay.

sandsjames
01-14-2017, 07:00 PM
If they want to work in an environment where unreasonable conduct or over sensitivity is okay, they do have the option of not staying in the military, or if a GS just quitting.I would agree. I think we just have a very wide gap between what you and I consider to be "unreasonable conduct".

Mjölnir
01-14-2017, 07:15 PM
It's reasonable to be able to expect to here jokes about the things that make you stick out. I was always the nerdy guy with glasses and I welcomed the jokes because it shows that you're part of the group. We have one female who works in our office and she's constantly hearing jokes about being in the kitchen, etc...most of the time she instigates it. We tease our boss about coming over and doing our landscaping (he's Mexican) and he gives it right back. This stuff is NORMAL. But we're told that shouldn't be happening. You can continue to take the stance that you are required to take but we all know what actually takes place. We also all know that the training is, dare I say, gay.

I know it happens, and yeah ... I know who I can say something to that maybe would get me in trouble with someone else. If you got a new boss, who was Mexican and not okay with it, and you deviated from that baseline, you would likely be held accountable. Let's say you get a new co-worker who is Mexican, and hears that ... they may not be okay with it and that could create problems... that is the purpose of the baseline ... people deviate from it, but if they do and they knew where it was ... it is on them.

Mjölnir
01-14-2017, 07:16 PM
It's reasonable to be able to expect to here jokes about the things that make you stick out. I was always the nerdy guy with glasses and I welcomed the jokes because it shows that you're part of the group. We have one female who works in our office and she's constantly hearing jokes about being in the kitchen, etc...most of the time she instigates it. We tease our boss about coming over and doing our landscaping (he's Mexican) and he gives it right back. This stuff is NORMAL. But we're told that shouldn't be happening. You can continue to take the stance that you are required to take but we all know what actually takes place. We also all know that the training is, dare I say, gay.

I know it happens, and yeah ... I know who I can say something to that maybe would get me in trouble with someone else. If you got a new boss, who was Mexican and not okay with it, and you deviated from that baseline, you would likely be held accountable. Let's say you get a new co-worker who is Mexican, and hears that ... they may not be okay with it and that could create problems... that is the purpose of the baseline ... people deviate from it, but if they do and they knew where it was ... it is on them.

Mjölnir
01-14-2017, 07:18 PM
I would agree. I think we just have a very wide gap between what you and I consider to be "unreasonable conduct".

Probably not as far as you think.

Edit: You and both grew up during the same general time, but what we also have to consider is people who grew up 20 years after we did, 20 years before, what someone from Alabama may think what someone from New York may think.

sandsjames
01-14-2017, 07:57 PM
Probably not as far as you think.

Edit: You and both grew up during the same general time, but what we also have to consider is people who grew up 20 years after we did, 20 years before, what someone from Alabama may think what someone from New York may think.

I work around those who grew up 20+ years after me, from all parts of the country, on a daily basis and, I can tell you with first hand knowledge, the overwhelming majority of them share the same sentiment as I do. I've never discussed these things with the students, but it's quite easy to observe their interactions with each other. Ain't nobody wanna deal with that PC crap.

Mjölnir
01-14-2017, 08:34 PM
I work around those who grew up 20+ years after me, from all parts of the country, on a daily basis and, I can tell you with first hand knowledge, the overwhelming majority of them share the same sentiment as I do. I've never discussed these things with the students, but it's quite easy to observe their interactions with each other. Ain't nobody wanna deal with that PC crap.

And if that is what is working for your work environment ... ok.

garhkal
01-15-2017, 04:46 AM
Don't you think the fact that there are required training sessions for how to deal with stuff says something?

And i know people who cause they DIDN'T attend those luncheons say for Native american month, etc who got MARKED down from a 3.0 on their EO for the evals..


What we're being asked to do is accept working with mentally ill people without questioning it or being label "phobic". There is extensive research showing that transgenders suffer from serious mental issues and they're being thrown in the field with everyone else. How is this not counter to everything we learn about good order and discipline?

And since so may DO commit suicide even AFTER they get their sex change, shows something's still 'wrong inside the head'.. Well to me at least.


would be offensive to a reasonable person and below that baseline

People keep trotting out that Reasonable person malarkey. BUT no matter if a reasonable person feels calling a guy "hey dude", if Mr transgendered snowflake who feel's he's a chick that day hears "Hey dude", and gets offended, you are done for.. Or if a reasonable person who was on duty in England, where popular slang for asking someone if you can 'snag' a cigarettes is (and has for decades) "Can i bum a fag mate" a reasonable brit won't get in a tizzy at that. However if Mr LGBTQ is in earshot, they can do you over for daring to say the fag word..


It's reasonable to be able to expect to here jokes about the things that make you stick out. I was always the nerdy guy with glasses and I welcomed the jokes because it shows that you're part of the group. We have one female who works in our office and she's constantly hearing jokes about being in the kitchen, etc...most of the time she instigates it. We tease our boss about coming over and doing our landscaping (he's Mexican) and he gives it right back. This stuff is NORMAL. But we're told that shouldn't be happening. You can continue to take the stance that you are required to take but we all know what actually takes place. We also all know that the training is, dare I say, gay.

On my first 2 duty stations, BOTH carriers with females aboard, some of the sauciest 'sex talk jokes' we ever heard CAME from the gals. However some were in the mindset (cause of tailhook) that THEY could say it all they wanted, but a guy says one, then hell will be paid..

Mjölnir
01-15-2017, 08:31 AM
And i know people who cause they DIDN'T attend those luncheons say for Native american month, etc who got MARKED down from a 3.0 on their EO for the evals..

If that was the reason given to them for down marking EO, they should have submitted a statement with the Eval; that is counter to the Performance and Evaluation Manual.

If they got a sub 3.0, more than likely there was something substantial that they did. Since that would have to documented on the report, and "Failure to attend [WHATEVER] luncheon" is not a valid reason to down mark EO, that would not have been accepted by PERS.

That may be why that individual thinks they were marked down, but seriously .... SERIOUSLY doubt that is the real reason since it would not get past the CMC, CO, or the PERS review before being accepted and filed.



And since so may DO commit suicide even AFTER they get their sex change, shows something's still 'wrong inside the head'.. Well to me at least.

Many straight, all-American service members commit suicide as well, obviously there are mental issues ... "wrong in the head" is a fairly stupid way to categorize that issue.


People keep trotting out that Reasonable person malarkey. BUT no matter if a reasonable person feels calling a guy "hey dude", if Mr transgendered snowflake who feel's he's a chick that day hears "Hey dude", and gets offended, you are done for.. Or if a reasonable person who was on duty in England, where popular slang for asking someone if you can 'snag' a cigarettes is (and has for decades) "Can i bum a fag mate" a reasonable brit won't get in a tizzy at that. However if Mr LGBTQ is in earshot, they can do you over for daring to say the fag word..

In American English ... fag doesn't have the same connotation, so yeah ... different.


On my first 2 duty stations, BOTH carriers with females aboard, some of the sauciest 'sex talk jokes' we ever heard CAME from the gals. However some were in the mindset (cause of tailhook) that THEY could say it all they wanted, but a guy says one, then hell will be paid..

Just because the everyone in the environment is okay with the climate, doesn't make it a professional workplace. Get one person assigned who isn't okay and there could be lots of problems for everyone continues to be unprofessional.

If females were telling sex jokes and getting away with it, and a male told one and got in trouble ... again ... did he file a statement? You are clearly defining a double standard, that should have been addressed ... but if you or other people accept it, bitching about it later is fairly useless and you kind of made your bed on that.

sandsjames
01-15-2017, 01:22 PM
Many straight, all-American service members commit suicide as well, obviously there are mental issues ... "wrong in the head" is a fairly stupid way to categorize that issue. Someone who wants to mutilate their body OR kill themselves is wrong in the head. Not sure how else it should be categorized.




Just because the everyone in the environment is okay with the climate, doesn't make it a professional workplace. Get one person assigned who isn't okay and there could be lots of problems for everyone continues to be unprofessional. Right...the masses are forced to adjust to the few...

Mjölnir
01-15-2017, 01:39 PM
Someone who wants to mutilate their body OR kill themselves is wrong in the head. Not sure how else it should be categorized.

Many suffer from PTS ... from combat experience. "Wrong in the head" is crude ... especially from those who stood on the sidelines while others were in the fight for them.




Right...the masses are forced to adjust to the few...

If the masses have a standard of conduct that is unprofessional ... and the few want it professional ... then yes.

If the everyone in your shop greeted each other in the morning by grabbing each other's crotch or with an open mouth kiss, and you didn't want them to do that to you ... should they stop or not?

sandsjames
01-15-2017, 02:53 PM
Many suffer from PTS ... from combat experience. "Wrong in the head" is crude ... especially from those who stood on the sidelines while others were in the fight for them. And this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. If someone has a broken leg, bad back, damaged knee, then it's fair to say they are not right physically. I'm not sure why it's so wrong to say that someone isn't "right" if they have mental issues. If they were right they wouldn't need to seek assistance. I'm by no means saying that people with PTSD and other mental conditions have a choice in how they respond...just saying that their mindset is not normal.

The problem with our world, and the point of this entire discussion, is that people let words bother them so much, even though they have the exact same meaning as other words which may came across as more sympathetic.

But I realize you've been programmed in a way to respond in case there happens to be someone else who may possibly be offended, so it's not entirely your fault.

Grabbing crotches and kissing? Really? That's the best you can do for an analogy of calling something "gay"? Weak.

Mjölnir
01-15-2017, 03:08 PM
But I realize you've been programmed in a way to respond in case there happens to be someone else who may possibly be offended, so it's not entirely your fault.

Grabbing crotches and kissing? Really? That's the best you can do for an analogy of calling something "gay"? Weak.

Programmed? Right. If you can't argue the point, attack the individual, kudos.

And yes, a very extreme analogy but one that demonstrates that there are times that the majority being okay with something does not make it okay. What is weak is your inability to see or acknowledge that cause, y'know ... weak.

sandsjames
01-15-2017, 03:54 PM
Programmed? Right. If you can't argue the point, attack the individual, kudos.

And yes, a very extreme analogy but one that demonstrates that there are times that the majority being okay with something does not make it okay. What is weak is your inability to see or acknowledge that cause, y'know ... weak.

Stop...you're embarrassing yourself. There is nobody, outside of the porn industry, who would think that kissing and crotch grabbing is ok in the workplace. There is a large majority of people who are just fine will ribbing each other in a way that the overly sensitive would consider offensive.

Your analogy is like the person saying "If I can't expect you to sweep the floor properly, how can I expect you to work on a plane." You're so far off base, you know it, but you're past the point of no return now so you'll keep at it. I understand. I can be pretty stubborn, too.

Mjölnir
01-15-2017, 04:38 PM
Stop...you're embarrassing yourself. There is nobody, outside of the porn industry, who would think that kissing and crotch grabbing is ok in the workplace. There is a large majority of people who are just fine will ribbing each other in a way that the overly sensitive would consider offensive.

Your analogy is like the person saying "If I can't expect you to sweep the floor properly, how can I expect you to work on a plane." You're so far off base, you know it, but you're past the point of no return now so you'll keep at it. I understand. I can be pretty stubborn, too.

So we agree there is a standard on what is acceptable in the workplace; maybe we disagree on what that standard is or should be (I would guess we are closer on that than you would think). Yes there are overly sensitive people who are too easily offended, there are also people who think mildly/just sorta over the line behavior is okay if the majority is okay with it. In the case of the latter, I am sure it goes on at my command and they may get away with it indefinitely ... if someone complains and the complaint is validated "most of us were okay with it" is not a valid defense. That is the (to go way back to the point that has long been lost) of there being a standard; if people want to work in a shop where that standard is lower ... DoD may not be the right spot.

I have no clue what you are getting at in the second paragraph, maybe we agree to disagree before you throw a hissy fit and post another missive (you know, the one you said I would delete) crying how you can't deal with me and are leaving the forum, then come back after a couple weeks arguing the same shit again.

sandsjames
01-15-2017, 04:43 PM
I have no clue what you are getting at in the second paragraph, maybe we agree to disagree before you throw a hissy fit and post another missive (you know, the one you said I would delete) crying how you can't deal with me and are leaving the forum, then come back after a couple weeks arguing the same shit again. It may be the same shit from me, but it's also the same shit from you. Of course you can do no wrong so I know exactly how this ends because you hold the hammer...otherwise it would be a different situation and you'd actually have to have disagreements without the threat of bans from those who disagree with you.

sandsjames
01-15-2017, 05:00 PM
So we agree there is a standard on what is acceptable in the workplace; maybe we disagree on what that standard is or should be (I would guess we are closer on that than you would think). You keep saying "...we are closer than I would think". My question is, then, why are you afraid to say it? You aren't sitting in a staff room with a bunch of people who have the power to make your life miserable. If you think most of that shit is stupid (which would be where I stand...and you keep saying we're close on this) then just say it.

That's the whole discussion...the beginning and end of it. You are "trained" (forced) to toe the line and you are to the point now where you do it, even in anonymous places and even when you obviously don't agree with it. You'll keep giving the "right" answer, talking about productive workplace and inappropriate, etc. That's exactly what I meant by "programmed". It's to a point now where you just gladly accept it, even though you disagree with it, because you've been told, and told others over and over that it's the "right" thing.

The overly PC left has extorted a large percentage of the population into carrying out their beliefs, even if they don't believe in them.

Mjölnir
01-15-2017, 05:02 PM
It may be the same shit from me, but it's also the same shit from you. Of course you can do no wrong so I know exactly how this ends because you hold the hammer...otherwise it would be a different situation and you'd actually have to have disagreements without the threat of bans from those who disagree with you.

Couple of things on this:

1. I have admitted when I was wrong, multiple times. You want to throw out a quip, change the conversation or ignore it. I argued the point just because the majority is okay with something that is unprofessional doesn't make it okay, you argued against, I brought up and example (extreme ... but illustrative of the point) and of course that is not valid because it is "too extreme" an example.

2. I do hold the hammer, and have never banned someone for a simple disagreement ... I have when someone makes it personal, makes it vulgar, makes it overtly distracting. I have told you I would ban you when you brought my daughter into a conversation about sexual assault and I asked you stop and you wouldn't. You had your hissy fit when I noticed your avatar was a dig at something we discussed via private message, you were certain I would delete your hissy fit, it still is available for all to see.

On your comments about someone being wrong in the head and why can't we just say that. Technically you are right, something is wrong. Yes, something is wrong in their head, it is a crude way to describe it ... no less though that to comment to burn or wound victim with scars on their face "what is wrong with your face?" ... it isn't incorrect ... it is rude. You had your 20 year career, you should be proud of it, no argument. For roughly half your career there were at least two wars going on, tens of thousands of people fought in them; and while you supported them, from what you have said here you never fought and the most dangerous thing you did seems to have been working around high electricity or your daily commute ... maybe I am too sensitive to your ignorant comments because I fought in them, and have lost friends whose bodies came home healthy but their minds were very injured ... many came home with mental health injuries that have led to suicide. So, as you have said here before ... maybe you are a bit too insensitive to some issues, maybe this is one. If you want to bitch about people being too sensitive and needing their safe space, maybe you be a tad bit courteous to those who provided you the safety to do your job so you didn't have to fight.

sandsjames
01-15-2017, 05:09 PM
Couple of things on this:

1. I have admitted when I was wrong, multiple times. You want to throw out a quip, change the conversation or ignore it. I argued the point just because the majority is okay with something that is unprofessional doesn't make it okay, you argued against, I brought up and example (extreme ... but illustrative of the point) and of course that is not valid because it is "too extreme" an example.

2. I do hold the hammer, and have never banned someone for a simple disagreement ... I have when someone makes it personal, makes it vulgar, makes it overtly distracting. I have told you I would ban you when you brought my daughter into a conversation about sexual assault and I asked you stop and you wouldn't. You had your hissy fit when I noticed your avatar was a dig at something we discussed via private message, you were certain I would delete your hissy fit, it still is available for all to see.

On your comments about someone being wrong in the head and why can't we just say that. Technically you are right, something is wrong. Yes, something is wrong in their head, it is a crude way to describe it ... no less though that to comment to burn or wound victim with scars on their face "what is wrong with your face?" ... it isn't incorrect ... it is rude. You had your 20 year career, you should be proud of it, no argument. For roughly half your career there were at least two wars going on, tens of thousands of people fought in them; and while you supported them, from what you have said here you never fought and the most dangerous thing you did seems to have been working around high electricity or your daily commute ... maybe I am too sensitive to your ignorant comments because I fought in them, and have lost friends whose bodies came home healthy but their minds were very injured ... many came home with mental health injuries that have led to suicide. So, as you have said here before ... maybe you are a bit too insensitive to some issues, maybe this is one. If you want to bitch about people being too sensitive and needing their safe space, maybe you be a tad bit courteous to those who provided you the safety to do your job so you didn't have to fight.

We've all lost friends. Most of us (including me) have had subordinates come back with severe mental issues. One of my closest friends came back from an ILO/JET tasking after working as vehicle maintenance with the Army, seeing some pretty freaky shit from IEDs hitting vehicles. I wouldn't hesitate for a second to tell him that he was "wrong in the head". What do coaches tell their players when they are distracted? "Get your heads right". I've known people who have attempted/committed suicide. We've all been through the same stuff.

I'm not sure why you think I've never worked around anything dangerous/outside the wire. I am glad to see, though, how you feel about people who haven't...that they don't have a grasp of what life is actually like. That's actually a pretty piss poor attitude to have.

I'm not insensitive to it at all. I would (and have) recommend people get help. I would do(and have done) everything in my power to help get people right in the head.

Ultimately, I'm not sure why we need any of the help, though, as we're all thoroughly trained on how to be resilient...:eyeroll.

Mjölnir
01-15-2017, 05:15 PM
You keep saying "...we are closer than I would think". My question is, then, why are you afraid to say it? You aren't sitting in a staff room with a bunch of people who have the power to make your life miserable. If you think most of that shit is stupid (which would be where I stand...and you keep saying we're close on this) then just say it.

I have ... multiple times.

I do think there is a standard, a 'line in the sand' on appropriate conduct in the workspace. I know full well that when people are comfortable around each other they will drift from that line, I am guilty as charged. Your argument was that the majority should not have to change if one person wanted them to get back to that standard ... I disagree. I agree there are people too sensitive / offendable by what the reasonable person would not be. I have a few of those in my command (miliary and civilian). We have had to let them know that they are too sensitive, provided them the contact data for the ISIC (Immediate Superior in Command) EO if they wanted to address it the ISIC staff.


That's the whole discussion...the beginning and end of it. You are "trained" (forced) to toe the line and you are to the point now where you do it, even in anonymous places and even when you obviously don't agree with it. You'll keep giving the "right" answer, talking about productive workplace and inappropriate, etc. That's exactly what I meant by "programmed". It's to a point now where you just gladly accept it, even though you disagree with it, because you've been told, and told others over and over that it's the "right" thing.

If you are talking about standards of conduct, I think there is a level of professionalism we should exhibit. I know the kind of talk that takes place in the barracks, in a fighting hole at 0200, etc. My thoughts are that if everyone is okay with it (even if it is unprofessional) so be it ... but know you are now outside what is considered okay & acceptable and if someone isn't okay with it then you go back to the standard ... you needn't go beyond that to appease over sensitive people.


The overly PC left has extorted a large percentage of the population into carrying out their beliefs, even if they don't believe in them.

I won't disagree. I would also argue that the push on the overly (don't know the term) right is that I should get to be as much of a rude, crude ass as I want to be because ... well because 'Merica don't need PC and if someone is offended that isn't because I may be over the line of what is considered 'generally decent behavior'. Being decent got equated to being PC, which it isn't ... the two are separate but too many use the anti-PC mantra to justify just being an ass.

The too hard push by the left, created an equal but opposite reaction from the right which is no less okay.

Mjölnir
01-15-2017, 05:26 PM
We've all lost friends. Most of us (including me) have had subordinates come back with severe mental issues. One of my closest friends came back from an ILO/JET tasking after working as vehicle maintenance with the Army, seeing some pretty freaky shit from IEDs hitting vehicles. I wouldn't hesitate for a second to tell him that he was "wrong in the head". What do coaches tell their players when they are distracted? "Get your heads right". I've known people who have attempted/committed suicide. We've all been through the same stuff.

To your friend, based on your relationship with him, that may be the right thing to say. You also may say it to someone who may not be okay with you saying it. Again, you are technically correct ... I find it insensitive if you don't know the person.


I'm not sure why you think I've never worked around anything dangerous/outside the wire. I am glad to see, though, how you feel about people who haven't...that they don't have a grasp of what life is actually like. That's actually a pretty piss poor attitude to have.

I think that you haven't based on your comments that you had no combat experience, if that is incorrect please correct me. I have been dismissive of some of your comments about combat or use of force based on that ... if that is incorrect I would like to know, legitimately.

It isn't that I think less of people who are not combat vets. I think less of people who are not combat vets and are critical or dismissive of what that may be like to a person. No less than I think a woman who has given birth would think less of me (who hasn't given birth) if I was dismissive of the pain of that experience .. I would expect a "bitch please" to follow.

It isn't that non-combat vets don't have a grasp on what life is like, they don't have a grasp of what that life is like ...


Ultimately, I'm not sure why we need any of the help, though, as we're all thoroughly trained on how to be resilient...:eyeroll.

Fortunately we (edit: the Navy) don't really do that.

garhkal
01-15-2017, 06:06 PM
If that was the reason given to them for down marking EO, they should have submitted a statement with the Eval; that is counter to the Performance and Evaluation Manual.

If they got a sub 3.0, more than likely there was something substantial that they did. Since that would have to documented on the report, and "Failure to attend [WHATEVER] luncheon" is not a valid reason to down mark EO, that would not have been accepted by PERS.

That may be why that individual thinks they were marked down, but seriously .... SERIOUSLY doubt that is the real reason since it would not get past the CMC, CO, or the PERS review before being accepted and filed.

It might not LEGALLY be a valid reason but i know quite a few commanders, senior chiefs and such who DID push that mantra on their troops "You want that 3,0 or higher in your EO block, attend those functions. Don't go, and don't expect the 3.0 ranking..



If females were telling sex jokes and getting away with it, and a male told one and got in trouble ... again ... did he file a statement? You are clearly defining a double standard, that should have been addressed ... but if you or other people accept it, bitching about it later is fairly useless and you kind of made your bed on that.

It was right after Tailhook, in the mid 90s. SO of COURSE there was a bloody double standard.


Someone who wants to mutilate their body OR kill themselves is wrong in the head. Not sure how else it should be categorized.

And with the "newest buzzword" of people being "Trans-abled, who feel they are a disabled person living in a healthy body, so mutilate themselves to BECOME disabled.. Its imo gonna get worse..

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/becoming-disabled-by-choice-not-chance-transabled-people-feel-like-impostors-in-their-fully-working-bodies

Mjölnir
01-15-2017, 06:32 PM
It might not LEGALLY be a valid reason but i know quite a few commanders, senior chiefs and such who DID push that mantra on their troops "You want that 3,0 or higher in your EO block, attend those functions. Don't go, and don't expect the 3.0 ranking..

Except, to get sub 3.0 the Reporting Senior needs to document why -- specifically. So what was the justification for the sub 3.0? Also, if you knew commanders and senior enlisted who pushed that mantra (counter to the regs) I assume you filed a grievance against the command? Or no?


It was right after Tailhook, in the mid 90s. SO of COURSE there was a bloody double standard.

Again, you filed a grievance?

BT

Overall, I think the policies are pretty fair, straightforward, and reasonable. I can't argue that there are people who are going to get it wrong ... either take things too far in the "don't offend anyone" camp or who will say that it is PC bullshit that has no place in the military (ref the former Blue Angels CO who was relieved for a very unprofessional wardroom).

In either case, there are ways for those who feel that things are not in accordance with the instructions to voice a concern, even to bypass their Commander to complain about their Commander ... If you think things are wrong, you should file a grievance; burying your head in the sand only to complain about an issue solves nothing. Many people may say "not my job" or that is the job of someone more senior ... the right person to fix something can't be everywhere at once ... so if not you, then who?

sandsjames
01-15-2017, 08:51 PM
I think that you haven't based on your comments that you had no combat experience, if that is incorrect please correct me. I have been dismissive of some of your comments about combat or use of force based on that ... if that is incorrect I would like to know, legitimately. Have I been in combat situations where I have been required to return fire, etc? No. Have I been in locations that have had RPGs and the like being fired/thrown on the base? Absolutely. Have I been on convoys that have had to traverse IEDs? Absolutely.

So, I guess you can say that I may not know the pain of childbirth but I have indeed passed a couple kidney stones.

Mjölnir
01-15-2017, 09:16 PM
Have I been in combat situations where I have been required to return fire, etc? No. Have I been in locations that have had RPGs and the like being fired/thrown on the base? Absolutely. Have I been on convoys that have had to traverse IEDs? Absolutely.

So, I guess you can say that I may not know the pain of childbirth but I have indeed passed a couple kidney stones.

Good to know ... legitimately good to know.

Passing a kidney stone is like passing a spiked beach ball.

sandsjames
01-15-2017, 09:46 PM
Passing a kidney stone is like passing a spiked beach ball.

It is indeed. I've passed 2. The first was a couple years ago. 7mm (I guess that's fairly big. Then I passed another about 2 months ago...much smaller...3mm. Both sent me to the ER. I'd rather be kicked in the nuts by a Kung Fu master wearing steel toed boots than deal with a kidney stone.

Rainmaker
01-16-2017, 02:31 AM
If the everyone in your shop greeted each other in the morning by grabbing each other's crotch or with an open mouth kiss, and you didn't want them to do that to you ... should they stop or not?

https://pics.onsizzle.com/trump-here-to-grab-pussy-and-make-america-great-again-5686606.png

Mjölnir
01-16-2017, 07:24 PM
https://pics.onsizzle.com/trump-here-to-grab-pussy-and-make-america-great-again-5686606.png

I hear cat shelters around the country are putting him on the verboten list.

Rainmaker
01-18-2017, 05:24 PM
Allowing LGBT people to serve was no experiment...the military was probably the last institution that discriminated so blantantly against them.



Rainmaker served over 23 years of combined active duty in the Army and Air Force, as an artilleryman, aircrew member and analyst, (both before and during DADT) and during all that time he never once saw anyone involuntarily separated, for the sole reason of their being gay......

Now, knowing all that Bos...... Do you think it's possible that Obama's being a closeted homosexual, had any bearing on his actions to destroy the morale, cohesion and esprit de corps of our armed forces?

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Is+President+Obama+a+homosexual%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Bos Mutus
01-18-2017, 06:02 PM
Rainmaker served over 23 years of combined active duty in the Army and Air Force, as an artilleryman, aircrew member and analyst, (both before and during DADT) and during all that time he never once saw anyone involuntarily separated, for the sole reason of their being gay......

Now, knowing all that Bos...... Do you think it's possible that Obama's being a closeted homosexual, had any bearing on his actions to destroy the morale, cohesion and esprit de corps of our armed forces?

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Is+President+Obama+a+homosexual%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

No...Bos think Rainman is full of shit and probably closeted homosexual hisself,

Rainmaker
01-18-2017, 07:16 PM
Bos think Rainman is full of shit and probably closeted homosexual hisself,

Ahhh.... the old played out 'you don't like homos because, deep down inside, you are, in fact a homo' ad hominem.....

But, you're not getting away that easily this time Bos...... Because, Rainmaker's spent months contemplating the matter & his hypotheses can't be disproved.

Behold exhibit A!


https://robsrantings.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/obama_firstpitch_sidebyside.jpg?w=468&h=373

Mjölnir
01-19-2017, 09:52 AM
Rainmaker served over 23 years of combined active duty in the Army and Air Force, as an artilleryman, aircrew member and analyst, (both before and during DADT) and during all that time he never once saw anyone involuntarily separated, for the sole reason of their being gay......

In 25 years I have saw 3 discharged for violating DADT.


Now, knowing all that Bos...... Do you think it's possible that Obama's being a closeted homosexual, had any bearing on his actions to destroy the morale, cohesion and esprit de corps of our armed forces?

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Is+President+Obama+a+homosexual%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I don't think President Obama is a closeted homosexual; I won't disagree that I think he isn't as big a supporter of the military as other Presidents (usually Republicans) have been, I think it is more based on how Obama's ideology and the military culture more are at conflict than aligned.

Based on my time at Camp David during the Clinton administration, I would argue that both President and Mrs. Obama were more supportive of the military than President Clinton was, and much more than I anticipate HRC would have been.

sandsjames
01-19-2017, 11:00 AM
.

Based on my time at Camp David during the Clinton administration, I would argue that both President and Mrs. Obama were more supportive of the military than President Clinton was, and much more than I anticipate HRC would have been.

Ugh...you really don't realize how often you do it, do you?

Mjölnir
01-19-2017, 12:32 PM
Ugh...you really don't realize how often you do it, do you?

I know ... bragging right?

I have been fortunate to have a diverse career, if one of my experiences lends validation to a point, I don't see the issue in relating that. In most cases it is a hope to avoid a "how/why the hell would you know/think that?" kind of reaction like what I would probably have if a USAF admin clerk started giving opinion on infantry tactics.

In this case, I observed President and Mrs. Clinton personally, up close and in some candid (away from the press) moments ... which lends weight (IMO) to my point.

sandsjames
01-19-2017, 12:51 PM
I know ... bragging right?

I have been fortunate to have a diverse career, if one of my experiences lends validation to a point, I don't see the issue in relating that. In most cases it is a hope to avoid a "how/why the hell would you know/think that?" kind of reaction like what I would probably have if a USAF admin clerk started giving opinion on infantry tactics.

In this case, I observed President and Mrs. Clinton personally, up close and in some candid (away from the press) moments ... which lends weight (IMO) to my point.

No...it's fine. Every shop, workplace, message board, forum, etc has that guy in it.

I remember very clearly back in 1982, shortly after the 49ers had won Superbowl XVI, they came to our high school for a donkey basketball game. We all wanted to see their rings but none of them were wearing them. When asked why, Joe Cool, the greatest quarterback of all time, stated that there was no need to wear it. People all knew they were the champions and that the ring itself was for his own personal reflection. He said that if he ever needed that ring to prove to people who he was and what he had done that his accomplishment would turn into failures. Even to this day he doesn't wear them.

My point is, we've all been on this board long enough to know your accomplishments and resume...believe me...you've made most of it pretty clear. So there's no need for you to justify your POV, Commander. Your credibility has been well established. Have some confidence in it for once.

Rainmaker
01-19-2017, 02:06 PM
I know ... bragging right?
It ain't bragging if you done it


I would argue that both President and Mrs. Obama were more supportive of the military than President Clinton was, and much more than I anticipate HRC would have been.

The Military's far worse shape now, then it was after the 90's drawdown. Possibly be the worst ever (Wasn't around for the Carter years).

Only because, in the 90's, we actually still had a cadre of strong generals and a larger number of vets in the Congress and the general public (with enough pride) to be willing to oppose the destruction of our Culture.


observed President and Mrs. Clinton personally, up close and in some candid (away from the press) moments ... which lends weight (IMO) to my point.
Rainmaker's heard similar accounts, from a friend (in the WHCA) who regularly encountered them.




I have saw 3 discharged for violating DADT.
How were they Identified? Was that the sole reason for their being discharged?




don't think President Obama is a closeted homosexual

Exhibit B:
http://publisher.attn.com/sites/default/files/pizza1.png

Rainmaker
01-19-2017, 02:18 PM
No...it's fine. Every shop, workplace, message board, forum, etc has that guy in it.

I remember very clearly back in 1982, shortly after the 49ers had won Superbowl XVI, they came to our high school for a donkey basketball game. We all wanted to see their rings but none of them were wearing them. When asked why, Joe Cool, the greatest quarterback of all time, stated that there was no need to wear it. People all knew they were the champions and that the ring itself was for his own personal reflection. He said that if he ever needed that ring to prove to people who he was and what he had done that his accomplishment would turn into failures. Even to this day he doesn't wear them.

My point is, we've all been on this board long enough to know your accomplishments and resume...believe me...you've made most of it pretty clear. So there's no need for you to justify your POV, Commander. Your credibility has been well established. Have some confidence in it for once.


Montana > Brady??? Check your privilege!

sandsjames
01-19-2017, 02:28 PM
Montana > Brady??? Check your privilege!

Yes, better than Brady. Let's not forget that Super Joe QBd in a time when receivers could actually be hit by DBs, which meant he had to protect his receivers and couldn't just throw the ball high over the middle whenever he felt the need.

Don't get me wrong...Brady is a close second and the two have had very similar careers. Both came up in systems that were really built for their style with outstanding coaches and team management. But there's only one original who changed the game forever.

Rainmaker
01-19-2017, 02:46 PM
Yes, better than Brady. Let's not forget that Super Joe QBd in a time when receivers could actually be hit by DBs, which meant he had to protect his receivers and couldn't just throw the ball high over the middle whenever he felt the need.

Don't get me wrong...Brady is a close second and the two have had very similar careers. Both came up in systems that were really built for their style with outstanding coaches and team management. But there's only one original who changed the game forever.

I think they're about equal. But, Longevity gives Brady the edge. By 35 Montana had shot his wad & was washed up. Brady just keeps winning.
Rainmaker's been boycotting the NFL this season. But, If the Pats go to the ship. I'm watching in hopes that Goodel will have to hand him that MVP trophy!

Mjölnir
01-19-2017, 02:54 PM
Ugh...you really don't realize how often you do it, do you?

I know ... bragging right?

I have been fortunate to have a diverse career, if one of my experiences lends validation to a point, I don't see the issue in relating that. In most cases it is a hope to avoid a "how/why the hell would you know/think that?" kind of reaction like what I would probably have if a USAF admin clerk started giving opinion on infantry tactics.

In this case, I observed President and Mrs. Clinton personally, up close and in some candid (away from the press) moments ... which lends weight (IMO) to my point.

sandsjames
01-19-2017, 02:58 PM
I think they're about equal. But, Longevity gives Brady the edge. By 35 Montana had shot his wad & was washed up. Brady just keeps winning. Again, longevity due to the rules of the game and the punishment defenses were allowed to give to QBs but, yes, you're right about Brady playing longer.


Rainmaker's been boycotting the NFL this season. But, If the Pats go to the ship. I'm watching in hopes that Goodel will have to hand him that MVP trophy!I would love that. I'm a Brady fan, mainly because Brady was a Montana/SF fan and am always pissed off they didn't draft him when they had the chance. I would love to see him have to hand him the Superbowl MVP, the Lombardi, and the season MVP. There is no doubt that this is a revenge season for him and it's working out pretty good, so far.

sandsjames
01-19-2017, 02:59 PM
I know ... bragging right?

I have been fortunate to have a diverse career, if one of my experiences lends validation to a point, I don't see the issue in relating that. In most cases it is a hope to avoid a "how/why the hell would you know/think that?" kind of reaction like what I would probably have if a USAF admin clerk started giving opinion on infantry tactics.

In this case, I observed President and Mrs. Clinton personally, up close and in some candid (away from the press) moments ... which lends weight (IMO) to my point.Damn...that's quite a big delay on this post showing up for a 3rd time. Someone should get on that!

MikeKerriii
01-19-2017, 03:20 PM
I do feel kinda irked about his LGBTQRS statement, imo that is PART of why so many i know dislike how the military is going (and has been going), it is being too used as a social experiment..
The military has always reflected society for good or evil, that is why they kicked black sailors out of the Navy after the war of 1812. It is not a experiment if it has been done many times before, and that is the Case with LGBTQ people serving. We WERE the most backwards western nation in his area The true "experiments" had been done years beforein nations not as socially backwards as we are.

Mjölnir
01-19-2017, 03:21 PM
No...it's fine. Every shop, workplace, message board, forum, etc has that guy in it.

I remember very clearly back in 1982, shortly after the 49ers had won Superbowl XVI, they came to our high school for a donkey basketball game. We all wanted to see their rings but none of them were wearing them. When asked why, Joe Cool, the greatest quarterback of all time, stated that there was no need to wear it. People all knew they were the champions and that the ring itself was for his own personal reflection. He said that if he ever needed that ring to prove to people who he was and what he had done that his accomplishment would turn into failures. Even to this day he doesn't wear them.

My point is, we've all been on this board long enough to know your accomplishments and resume...believe me...you've made most of it pretty clear. So there's no need for you to justify your POV, Commander. Your credibility has been well established. Have some confidence in it for once.

I do see your point. I do sometimes forget that the group here is small, and that we all have been posting on here for a few years. Counterpoint though is that while every shop has that guy (that in this case you would say is me), they usually always have that guy who bemoans when other people do or have done well (which many times is how you come across).

Mjölnir
01-19-2017, 03:24 PM
Damn...that's quite a big delay on this post showing up for a 3rd time. Someone should get on that!

Reinforces the original point ... :)

sandsjames
01-19-2017, 03:31 PM
I do see your point. I do sometimes forget that the group here is small, and that we all have been posting on here for a few years. Counterpoint though is that while every shop has that guy (that in this case you would say is me), they usually always have that guy who bemoans when other people do or have done well (which many times is how you come across).

You shouldn't see my point. It was a lie. Did they come and play donkey basketball? Yes, but Joe wasn't there...and they didn't talk to us about anything.

It is interesting, however, to see how you were able to see my point when I name dropped, though. I wonder if you would have been as agreeable if I didn't.

As far as bemoaning people, maybe I do. Honestly, I don't care about a person's background, what they've done, who they've met. It's just not important.

Honestly, I wouldn't find you any more or less trustworthy or legitimate if the only high profile person you'd interacted with was Ronald McDonald.

Mjölnir
01-19-2017, 07:09 PM
It ain't bragging if you done it

It can be, won't argue that. As I said, raising a point to back up an 'argument' I don't think falls in that category.


The Military's far worse shape now, then it was after the 90's drawdown. Possibly be the worst ever (Wasn't around for the Carter years).

Only because, in the 90's, we actually still had a cadre of strong generals and a larger number of vets in the Congress and the general public (with enough pride) to be willing to oppose the destruction of our Culture.

Rainmaker's heard similar accounts, from a friend (in the WHCA) who regularly encountered them.

President Clinton was a very nice guy, both to his peers with him on site, and us (his subordinates). You can tell a lot about a person by how they treat their subordinates.

He was also a politician, he had an ability to remember little things about people to make small talk when he saw you; the couple of times it happened to me he remembered I was from Louisiana and would comment on how the Arkansas Razorbacks were looking to give LSU Tigers a run for their money this year. Granted, I did not like LSU, but the fact that POTUS remembered who I was made a connection ...


How were they Identified? Was that the sole reason for their being discharged?

2 made it known they were homosexual ... maybe they just wanted out, if so they got what they wanted. No misconduct or other issues.

1 ... honestly not sure ... no NJP or other issues that I could say were part of the separation proceding ... but not familiar enough to state for sure one way or the other.


Exhibit B:
http://publisher.attn.com/sites/default/files/pizza1.png

Not sure what about that makes him homosexual.

garhkal
01-19-2017, 08:05 PM
In 25 years I have saw 3 discharged for violating DADT.


In my 20, i saw 8. BUT it wasn't just for violating DADT. They were often for other things (getting caught having sex on ship in a fanroom, adultery and the like, the gayness was just an add on).



I don't think President Obama is a closeted homosexual; I won't disagree that I think he isn't as big a supporter of the military as other Presidents (usually Republicans) have been, I think it is more based on how Obama's ideology and the military culture more are at conflict than aligned.

If anything, he is anti-military imo..

Mjölnir
01-19-2017, 09:29 PM
You shouldn't see my point. It was a lie. Did they come and play donkey basketball? Yes, but Joe wasn't there...and they didn't talk to us about anything.

It is interesting, however, to see how you were able to see my point when I name dropped, though. I wonder if you would have been as agreeable if I didn't.

Aesop's Fables weren't really true either, but they illustrate a point. So does your story ... true or not.


As far as bemoaning people, maybe I do. Honestly, I don't care about a person's background, what they've done, who they've met. It's just not important.

And here we will fervently disagree.

Everyone has opinions. Some people's opinions I weigh much more heavily because they have background and/or experience in what they are talking about; someone inexperienced in the area may still have an opinion or idea and they are welcome to it; but the fact is that some people are more qualified to be talking about some things than others.

While this is just an internet message forum, we talk about a lot of subjects, some of us are more knowledgeable about some topics than others and I would imagine you do care about people's backgrounds and what they have done. Do you not care that your doctor is actually a doctor, that your plumber is actually a plumber etc.? The only time I have seen anyone hostile to someone being experienced about a topic and using / leveraging their experience was because of insecurity ...


Honestly, I wouldn't find you any more or less trustworthy or legitimate if the only high profile person you'd interacted with was Ronald McDonald.

Hell of a guy.

sandsjames
01-19-2017, 09:57 PM
Aesop's Fables weren't really true either, but they illustrated a point. I knew Aesop...most of that stuff really happened.




Everyone has opinions. Some people's opinions I weigh much more heavily because they have background and/or experience in what they are talking about; someone inexperienced in the area may still have an opinion or idea and they are welcome to it; but the fact is that some people are more qualified to be talking about some things than others. Here's where we fervently disagree. I don't need input from an abortion doctor or a civil rights attorney to say that I think abortion is wrong. I don't need any expertise to voice my opinion. I'm not having a summit where I'm trying to convince people of anything. I'm simply opining.


While this is just an internet message forum, we talk about a lot of subjects, some of us are more knowledgeable about some topics than others and I would imagine you do care about people's backgrounds and what they have done. Do you not care that your doctor is actually a doctor, that your plumber is actually a plumber etc.? The only time I have seen anyone hostile to someone being experienced about a topic and using / leveraging their experience was because of insecurity ... If I go to a doctors office, I'm not going to ask him his background...I'm not going to look for his degree. I'm gonna assume he's wearing a white coat and working in a doctor's office for a reason. When he tells me that I should cut back on cholesterol I don't need him to justify his advice with any personal experience.

On that note, we know where you've worked and that you've been around a lot of different, high profile people. If we are discussing these topics and you tell me your opinion on the difference between Obama and Clinton and how they feel about the military, I'm gonna be able to take your word for it. Hearing "Camp David" and the fact that you were around them on a more personal level makes zero difference. You have your credibility already.

For Christ's sake...you are so set in your ways on this that you don't even want to take a compliment.

Mjölnir
01-19-2017, 10:06 PM
I knew Aesop...most of that stuff really happened.

Hell of a guy.




Here's where we fervently disagree. I don't need input from an abortion doctor or a civil rights attorney to say that I think abortion is wrong. I don't need any expertise to voice my opinion. I'm not having a summit where I'm trying to convince people of anything. I'm simply opining.

If I go to a doctors office, I'm not going to ask him his background...I'm not going to look for his degree. I'm gonna assume he's wearing a white coat and working in a doctor's office for a reason. When he tells me that I should cut back on cholesterol I don't need him to justify his advice with any personal experience.

And like I said, maybe I forget that the 6-8 people still poking around MTF kind of know each other's backgrounds and stories. When I talk to my wife, people at work I don't ref being in the Marines or stuff like that cause, they know. Just like the other day, I told you that for a long time I dismissed your position on some things because I was ignorant of things about you ...


On that note, we know where you've worked and that you've been around a lot of different, high profile people. If we are discussing these topics and you tell me your opinion on the difference between Obama and Clinton and how they feel about the military, I'm gonna be able to take your word for it. Hearing "Camp David" and the fact that you were around them on a more personal level makes zero difference. You have your credibility already.

For Christ's sake...you are so set in your ways on this that you don't even want to take a compliment.

The Camp David thing was meant to just illustrate that I had seen them when cameras were not on them, politicians, celebrities and most people will act one way when people outside their intimate circle are watching.

If you meant your earlier comments as a compliment I didn't get that from it, so ... thanks?

sandsjames
01-19-2017, 10:12 PM
If you meant your earlier comments as a compliment I didn't get that from it, so ... thanks?You didn't take me telling you that you have your credibility as a compliment?

Also, I don't know why you'd dismiss a position so easily. Must come from that military mindset of "trust but verify" which, we all know, means "don't trust".

Mjölnir
01-19-2017, 10:51 PM
You didn't take me telling you that you have your credibility as a compliment?

I took it as sarcasm, my mistake. So thanks (no question mark).


Also, I don't know why you'd dismiss a position so easily. Must come from that military mindset of "trust but verify" which, we all know, means "don't trust".

If we are talking politics, I most likely wouldn't be dismissive -- that is a more subjective topic, if we are talking the political process, I may be ... if we are talking electrical stuff, I would value your opinion much more than Rainmaker (no offense) since I know that is an area you could/should be considered an expert.

Personally, when talking about how something 'is', that is different than how it 'should be', I think I more often focus on the 'is' when I know about something and focus on the 'should' when I don't.

ie. Green Lantern is a bad superhero movie ;)

sandsjames
01-19-2017, 11:48 PM
ie. Green Lantern is a bad superhero movie ;)Ha...come on now...let's grade it on a curve. Think back to superhero movies before 1999...they were all aweful...then X-Men changed everything. So, Green Lantern, IMO, was good...look at the older Captain America and Justice League movies they came out with...

So, GL is relatively good...though this is coming from a guy who also actually like the Daredevil and Elektra movies...

sparks82
01-20-2017, 03:20 PM
Rainmaker served over 23 years of combined active duty in the Army and Air Force, as an artilleryman, aircrew member and analyst, (both before and during DADT) and during all that time he never once saw anyone involuntarily separated, for the sole reason of their being gay......

Now, knowing all that Bos...... Do you think it's possible that Obama's being a closeted homosexual, had any bearing on his actions to destroy the morale, cohesion and esprit de corps of our armed forces?

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Is+President+Obama+a+homosexual%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Just because you never saw it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I know of people who said they went their whole military career without knowing someone who was sexually assaulted. But it happens. People were discharged during DADT and before if it was found out they are homosexual since you could not join as an open homosexual.

People believe in a higher power but they don't see it. Yet that's a legitimate to believe in something you've never seen but you don't believe that people were discharged for being homosexual? Because you didn't see it?

garhkal
01-20-2017, 06:22 PM
Ha...come on now...let's grade it on a curve. Think back to superhero movies before 1999...they were all aweful...then X-Men changed everything. So, Green Lantern, IMO, was good...look at the older Captain America and Justice League movies they came out with...

So, GL is relatively good...though this is coming from a guy who also actually like the Daredevil and Elektra movies...

I also liked the Green lantern and Daredevil, but thought Elektra was crummy...