Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: First openly gay Chief of the army.. What's your thoughts?

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Is he the absolutely most qualified? Maybe, maybe not. Many political appointees aren't the MOST qualified. He does have a rather impressive resume that certainly qualifies him for the position, more than most ... his sexuality does absolutely nothing to unqualify him..

    To the original question though, does his sexuality matter for him to be the Secretary of the Army? IMO nope.
    In my opinion, "nope" as well, so why is it even mentioned? Can't he just be nominated based on his qualifications (I have no idea what they are) without the "and he's also gay" attached to it? Is he also short?

  2. #12
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mata Leao View Post
    In my opinion, "nope" as well, so why is it even mentioned? Can't he just be nominated based on his qualifications (I have no idea what they are) without the "and he's also gay" attached to it? Is he also short?
    No confirmation hearing to discuss his qualifications is necessary. A stellar 25 + year career as a political activist in the LGBTQIA ( yes, this is a real acronym) mafia speaks for itself.

    But, The good news is the Army may finally get its uniform problems squared away.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 09-22-2015 at 01:18 AM.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    Is he the absolutely most qualified? Maybe, maybe not. Many political appointees aren't the MOST qualified. He does have a rather impressive resume that certainly qualifies him for the position, more than most ... his sexuality does absolutely nothing to unqualify him..

    To the original question though, does his sexuality matter for him to be the Secretary of the Army? IMO nope.
    In my lifetime I can only think of one who was pushed as the most qualified person possible for SECDEF, and that was a utter waste of O2 named McNamara when I was a kid,

    I don;t think that being the best possible candidate has ever been that much a consideration for Presidents of either party when making appointments..

    The guy looks qualified a enough, more so than most

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,328
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    Agree. Sadly it's no longer relevant whether or not individuals appointed to positions of public trust are most qualified.

    What matters most is which "historically oppressed" victim group they claim and What affirmative action hiring quota they can fill.
    That's the way i was reading this.. Whether he is qualified for the Job, i will admit he seems to be. But like was asked above, IS he the most qualified? IMO without knowing who else was in the running, i can't say.

  5. #15
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,965
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    That's the way i was reading this.. Whether he is qualified for the Job, i will admit he seems to be. But like was asked above, IS he the most qualified? IMO without knowing who else was in the running, i can't say.
    No one really 'runs'; it is a political appointment so is up to the President and then the Senate for confirmation.

    He has been the #2 guy at the Department of the Army for some time, was previously the acting Secretary of the Air Force for ~6 months, has significant experience on the Hill with the Defense Committees as well as in the DoD.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    That's the way i was reading this.. Whether he is qualified for the Job, i will admit he seems to be. But like was asked above, IS he the most qualified? IMO without knowing who else was in the running, i can't say.
    Well....everyone in the country is " in the running".... Is he the singularly most qualified?....unlikely...but a near impossible task to determine who is...I'm sure some staff makes up a short list of who they know about, vet them, make recommendations and the pres. Makes the pick...all indications are he is very qualified. We'll never know who else is on the short list.

    considering his resume, if he were heterosexual, the nomination would probably not be much of a question except for normal politics that everything Obama does is the worst possible decision to some
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 09-22-2015 at 05:10 AM.
    The Voice of Reason

  7. #17
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,882
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post

    considering his resume, if he were heterosexual, the nomination would probably not be much of a question except for normal politics that everything Obama does is the worst possible decision to some
    We all know damn well why he was appointed. His main claim to fame is sitting on the board of directors for the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and working for CBS News.

    If this guy had been on the board of directors for some Conservative advocacy group, You Lefty's would be screaming freakin bloody murder.

    These appointments matter.

    " As Army secretary, Mr. Fanning, who has served as chief of staff to Mr. Carter, would exert influence over the selection of generals and over Army policy, including the integration of women into combat roles, training of combat forces and purchase of weapons"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us...army.html?_r=0

    So do you really think a Gay Activist Political Hack is going to be objective in that role?
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 09-23-2015 at 02:37 AM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    965
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainmaker View Post
    We all know damn well why he was appointed. His main claim to fame is sitting on the board of directors for the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and working for CBS News.

    If this guy had sad on the board of directors for some Conservative advocacy group, You Lefty's would be screaming freakin bloody murder.

    These appointments matter.

    " As Army secretary, Mr. Fanning, who has served as chief of staff to Mr. Carter, would exert influence over the selection of generals and over Army policy, including the integration of women into combat roles, training of combat forces and purchase of weapons"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us...army.html?_r=0

    So do you really think a Gay Activist Political Hack is going to be objective in that role?

    His resumes at least as good as most of his predecessors

    The issue of gays in the military nothing anyone needs to hire some to promote is and will remain the law, the bigots lost and the fight is over outside of a few ranters who are not in the mitary. It is about as undecided as the integration of the races in the military, another subject that is only criticized by a few sad loons.

    Do you have any facts to back up your assertions?

    Is your source of "knowledge" drugs alcohol or some other source of delusions?

  9. #19
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,565
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mata Leao View Post
    In my opinion, "nope" as well, so why is it even mentioned? Can't he just be nominated based on his qualifications (I have no idea what they are) without the "and he's also gay" attached to it? Is he also short?
    I don't think it was mentioned in the nomination at all...or in any press release from the White House, DOD, etc.

    Just media covering the story afterward mentioned it...and Mike Huckabee
    The Voice of Reason

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,328
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    Well....everyone in the country is " in the running".... Is he the singularly most qualified?....unlikely...but a near impossible task to determine who is...I'm sure some staff makes up a short list of who they know about, vet them, make recommendations and the pres. Makes the pick...all indications are he is very qualified. We'll never know who else is on the short list.

    considering his resume, if he were heterosexual, the nomination would probably not be much of a question except for normal politics that everything Obama does is the worst possible decision to some
    True if he was heterosexual, there wouldn't be much raised. BUT then again, if he was hetero, would we even be HEARING about it? It seems to me these days, when they push a gay/lesbian into office, they seem to make a big fan fair about it, as if THAT they are LGBTQ was the sole reason for their appointment..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •