MLD Woody Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I think the point you raised only means something to you. Right, because the person I directed it at missed it completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I'm still trying to figure out where the problem lies in hiring a gay man that is qualified for the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Three letters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Three letters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 because..... there aren't any other deserving, more deserving, people to put into that position than a gay obamaonite? When he is all about the culture war in favor of gays, transperverts, muslims, and illegals? I guess Obamao couldn't find an openly gay Muslim transpervert mexican illegal. Bringing perversion into a nomination.... is bad. very bad. Obamao has made political culture war a mainstay of his appointment process, there's no denying it. sick. Because if I were in the army, being asked by my commander about re-enlisting.. you bet I would be saying NO. Woodpecker may dream of taking orders from a pervert... not so much for a lot of regular folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Only straight, white, Christian males can be appointed to things. Got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 that's a better rule than to give gays precedence and favoritism... over all the other normal American soldiers in the entire leadership in the Army... which is exactly what obamao does regularly. You be a normal, superior officer for well over a decade, make all those sacrifices... and be the guy who should get that promotion.... and a dirtbag gay leftist pres puts an openly gay in charge. I see a lot of switching to other services. Obamao doesn't like the military, doesn't know about the military, and just wants to undermine everything to control everything. He's a disaster for our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Cal, do you know all of the other worthy candidates who were passed over? The guy's credentials seem to make the guy qualified for the job. Excluding him for being gay is as bad as giving him the gig just because he is gay. If the guy is qualified then whether or not he plays hide the hotdog at home should mean jack shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Cal, do you know all of the other worthy candidates who were passed over? The guy's credentials seem to make the guy qualified for the job. Excluding him for being gay is as bad as giving him the gig just because he is gay. If the guy is qualified then whether or not he plays hide the hotdog at home should mean jack shit.Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 What evidence do you have that he got preferential treatment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowe Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 He is basing it off of Obama's track record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Botom line is grunts don't want some faggot as secdef. All you goody two shoe mother fuckers can fuck off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Only straight, white, Christian males can be appointed to things. Got it So would it bother you if a president made that statement? Or not? (I'm guessing I know your response but why?) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 I'm still trying to figure out where the problem lies in hiring a gay man that is qualified for the job.Absolutely nothing.And no reason to assume that this guy could not possibly be the absolute best candidate in the entire military. And there's no way to prove that politics had anything to do with it. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 track record = solid indication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 Botom line is grunts don't want some faggot as secdef. All you goody two shoe mother fuckers can fuck off.He's not secdef. Ash Carter is (he's also a badass). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 So would it bother you if a president made that statement? Or not? (I'm guessing I know your response but why?) WSS I know you're the guy whose whole strategy on here is to ask enough rhetorical (or sometimes not) questions until you get someone in a "gotcha" moment.... but even I have no idea where you are planning on taking this one. But ya, no shit. If a president said they are only going to consider straight, white, Christian males for roles that would not go over very well. I would not like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 but it's okay with woody when obamao only favors gays and other perverts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 but it's okay with woody when obamao only favors gays and other perverts. Where did i say that? Where has Obama done that? How clueless are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 I know you're the guy whose whole strategy on here is to ask enough rhetorical (or sometimes not) questions until you get someone in a "gotcha" moment.... but even I have no idea where you are planning on taking this one. But ya, no shit. If a president said they are only going to consider straight, white, Christian males for roles that would not go over very well. I would not like it. And I'm sure you understand that saying well I'm going to do my best to pick my candidate from 1% of the available pool would not be the best way to do it statistically. Like I said there's no reason to think this guy isn't qualified but imagine that I was looking for an engineer and decided to exclude straight males. Or, for instance, if I was casting for a Broadway revival of Cats and wanted to hire all straight actors. I'm sure if I busted my ass I can find enough but... I think that would severely hamper my chances of getting the very best one. It would not, of course, make it impossible but... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 hello just a response from one of the "bIgots" on this subject - "Like I said there's no reason to think this guy isn't qualified" ^ I believe that the his most important qualification is that he is gay. I do not have the time now to expound on this yet - and if the thread doesnt die right now anyways I won t bother. But after reading a NY Times article this morning - I can explain my reasoning for this OBVIOUS Obama agenda hire ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Obama has made us the laughing stock militarily. Fags in the military. Transgendered. Women in combat positions. Wait until the shit hits the fan, then will see how is agenda works out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 When the Supreme court made the narrow ruling on gay marriage and Obama had the White House lit up in rainbow colored lights to celebrate the ruling is all I need to know. He is a horrible president, the worst in my lifetime. That ruling was not 9-0 but 5-4 with millions of Americans split (as well as the Supreme Court) on this but our divider in chief gloats with the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 He's not secdef. Ash Carter is (he's also a badass). I meant Sec Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 And I'm sure you understand that saying well I'm going to do my best to pick my candidate from 1% of the available pool would not be the best way to do it statistically. Like I said there's no reason to think this guy isn't qualified but imagine that I was looking for an engineer and decided to exclude straight males. Or, for instance, if I was casting for a Broadway revival of Cats and wanted to hire all straight actors. I'm sure if I busted my ass I can find enough but... I think that would severely hamper my chances of getting the very best one. It would not, of course, make it impossible but... WSS Yes, that all makes sense, but that isn't what you asked. You asked if I would not like it if the president said he's only appointing white, straight, Christian males. Of course I would be against that. But that doesn't mean I want him to only appoint minority groups. Being against one thing doesn't mean I'm for the exact opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 hello just a response from one of the "bIgots" on this subject - "Like I said there's no reason to think this guy isn't qualified" ^ I believe that the his most important qualification is that he is gay. I do not have the time now to expound on this yet - and if the thread doesnt die right now anyways I won t bother. But after reading a NY Times article this morning - I can explain my reasoning for this OBVIOUS Obama agenda hire ..... Who called you a bigot? What evidence do you have to support your claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 When the Supreme court made the narrow ruling on gay marriage and Obama had the White House lit up in rainbow colored lights to celebrate the ruling is all I need to know. He is a horrible president, the worst in my lifetime. That ruling was not 9-0 but 5-4 with millions of Americans split (as well as the Supreme Court) on this but our divider in chief gloats with the decision. Not a 50/50 split though among Americans. Give it a decade, and it will be even more in favor of gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Not a 50/50 split though among Americans. Give it a decade, and it will be even more in favor of gay marriage. 10 years ago, 37% in favour, 59% against, 4% undecided. This year, almost exactly reversed - 60% in favour, 37% against, 3% undecided. Which to be fair is roughly the voting proportions of the SCOTUS (obviously can't be exact because SCOTUS only has 9 judges). 9 years prior (1996), it was 27-68-5. In a decade? Well, I can't see it going back the other way, that's for sure. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted September 21, 2015 Report Share Posted September 21, 2015 Break it down by age. That paints the picture clearly enough. So unless you expect that 65+ demo to outlive the 18-35 demo (or something like that).... It doesn't look good for the anti gay side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.