Txdigest.com

Is Obama to dumb to have seen the comments coming?

..or is that what he was going for.

GFB wrote:See, I'm not reading all of that.

I read your first sentence. I'm assuming that is your response, so I will respond to that.

If sexuality is irrelevant, why is that all anyone is talking about with this man, and even if this person is as qualified as the other hundreds of potential hires, how is it he was chosen over the heterosexual men, and do you think if it was narrowed down to 5 highly qualified people, Obama choose the gay man simply because he IS gay.

further in the narrative cd posted this;


So, I am not suggesting, but rather saying specifically, that this person was chosen for a number of reasons practical and political. His sexuality was probably one of these

John in Plano wrote:

GFB wrote:See, I'm not reading all of that.

I read your first sentence. I'm assuming that is your response, so I will respond to that.

If sexuality is irrelevant, why is that all anyone is talking about with this man, and even if this person is as qualified as the other hundreds of potential hires, how is it he was chosen over the heterosexual men, and do you think if it was narrowed down to 5 highly qualified people, Obama choose the gay man simply because he IS gay.

further in the narrative cd posted this;


So, I am not suggesting, but rather saying specifically, that this person was chosen for a number of reasons practical and political. His sexuality was probably one of these

Thanks, can anyone give a legitimate reason that doesn't involve politicizing this particular government job and the process involved in choosing..that is valid?

GFB wrote:Is Obama to dumb to have seen the comments coming?

..or is that what he was going for.

Obama WANTS the comments and infighting amongst Conservatives , some who may be in the 'repub' party . The more infighting and quotable anti gay language the better .

Now what is this Flamers record on Gaystapo Activities ?

Did he just do his job without bringing sexual activities into it ?

Or was he an agitator ?

Determine this and then you will know if he was the best for the job or a quota pick.

John in Plano wrote:

GFB wrote:See, I'm not reading all of that.

I read your first sentence. I'm assuming that is your response, so I will respond to that.

If sexuality is irrelevant, why is that all anyone is talking about with this man, and even if this person is as qualified as the other hundreds of potential hires, how is it he was chosen over the heterosexual men, and do you think if it was narrowed down to 5 highly qualified people, Obama choose the gay man simply because he IS gay.

further in the narrative cd posted this;


So, I am not suggesting, but rather saying specifically, that this person was chosen for a number of reasons practical and political. His sexuality was probably one of these

And your point? Are you suggesting that any of these sort of appointments is free of political consideration? Everything the Right does is politically motivated...there is very little "practical" (like Ike to run the ETO) consideration involved. Such appointments are made from a melding of practical, political (it is at root a political appointment) and, perhaps more than anything else, personal elements that leads the the pick. No one factor alone determines the choice but political considerations are completely valid. You cannot claim that such a complex decision was made for ONE particular reason (absent some sort of real justification) or that anything the decision maker considered wasn't valid.

Could we sort of stay grounded in reality, please.

GFB wrote:

John in Plano wrote:

GFB wrote:See, I'm not reading all of that.

I read your first sentence. I'm assuming that is your response, so I will respond to that.

If sexuality is irrelevant, why is that all anyone is talking about with this man, and even if this person is as qualified as the other hundreds of potential hires, how is it he was chosen over the heterosexual men, and do you think if it was narrowed down to 5 highly qualified people, Obama choose the gay man simply because he IS gay.

further in the narrative cd posted this;


So, I am not suggesting, but rather saying specifically, that this person was chosen for a number of reasons practical and political. His sexuality was probably one of these

Thanks, can anyone give a legitimate reason that doesn't involve politicizing this particular government job and the process involved in choosing..that is valid?

Reason for what? All government jobs at this level are politicized...and so is the selection process. If you mean a legitimate reason for the selection I do have one...he was who the President of the US felt was the best choice for the job. And, in my personal opinion, the uproar here is legitimate reason to feel he made a good choice...if you people don't like it he probably got it right.

About choices, there has been a lot of talk about the BEST choice. All you can really hope for in these cases is a GOOD choice. And any GOOD choice is an acceptable choice. No doubt there really were 1000s of people qualified...Obama probably didn't even know most of them existed...and if he got a good one that is a good thing.

So, you people don't like the selection process, you don't like the selectee and you want to tell me that a complex decision process is really oh so simple. Got any more complaints or fairy tales to share.

It was a political appointment that sexuality didn't need to be injected into, yet was by this administration. Which in far more words you almost expressed.

John in Plano wrote:It was a political appointment that sexuality didn't need to be injected into, yet was by this administration. Which in far more words you almost expressed.

I don't think the Administration injected it into the process. You are the people whining. I think they ignored it, really. And no, I never suggested any such thing. I said his sexuality did not relate to his ability.

I also said that all appointments at this level are political decisions. I'm sorry you don't like the reality of the situation but that is the way it is.

Now, can ANYONE explain to me how his sexuality bears on his ability and qualification? I don't think it does but I'm willing to listen.

That is the question Obama hopes to be raised.

How does this effect his job?

He has no desire to hire qualified people..especially with regards to the military.

All his decisions are political, with no regard to whether he is harming institutions, or the country at large.

That is one big reason he should have never been allowed anywhere near the Oval Office, and why he is a horrible President, and a despicable person.

NO REGARD , heck , Obama goes out of his way to harm the country and especially institutions like the military , imo !!

GFB wrote:That is the question Obama hopes to be raised.

How does this effect his job?

He has no desire to hire qualified people..especially with regards to the military.

All his decisions are political, with no regard to whether he is harming institutions, or the country at large.

That is one big reason he should have never been allowed anywhere near the Oval Office, and why he is a horrible President, and a despicable person.

No, the Right is raising that question. If you think that is what he wants why are you cooperating?

GFB, you know exactly nothing about the military. You are reciting your PC Right wing talking points. You have some supporting facts or reasoning related to reality to advance your claims about quality hiring and the military generally?

Yes all his decisions are political just as the Conservatives are. So what? When has the Right ever given a damn about their policies harming institution or the Country generally if it advanced their agenda? I can recall either party doing that sort of thing.

Do you think that baseless assertion trumps the fact he was elected...twice? I'm not sure you gave any rationale to call him a horrible President. Personal opinion is not FACT...you are back to BS talking points. And finally, how dare you call him despicable? I have seen you advocate genocide and the nuclear extermination of the Worlds population. What has he done more despicable than THAT?

F off Troll.

Why did he pick him? Birds of a feather...

Conservatives make decisions based on what is best for the country.

Liberals make decisions based on politics. They politicize everything..even marriage.

And their decisions are designed to divide us, and destroy traditions that have held the country together.

I'll evoke the Mark rule here concerning "all Democrats."

..and Obama is definitely not stupid.

I don't understand Democrat's constant attempts to mix our militarily with sexual perversion.
What is their goal?

I don't know if it's perversion or not. I don't know it it's a choice or not. But, I really don't think it's important enough politically that it is a factor. It's a very small minority.

planosteve wrote:I don't know if it's perversion or not. I don't know it it's a choice or not. But, I really don't think it's important enough politically that it is a factor. It's a very small minority.

That is why it's so significant when one is singled out like this.

planosteve wrote:I don't know if it's perversion or not. I don't know it it's a choice or not. But, I really don't think it's important enough politically that it is a factor. It's a very small minority.

It's a perversion.

per·ver·sion
pərˈvərZHən/
2.
sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable.

Homosexuals make up from 3% to 10% of the population.
That makes it abnormal.

BillB wrote:I don't understand Democrat's constant attempts to mix our militarily with sexual perversion.
What is their goal?

might be to drive OUT the normal fighting men !! I mean , a lot of NORMAL guys , soldiers don't want to be associating , fighting , eating , living and sleeping , showering with a bunchs gays , transgenders and other assorted Bill .