Txdigest.com

The freak show continues.

President Obama, in a historic first for the Pentagon, has chosen to nominate Eric Fanning to lead the Army, a move that would make him the first openly gay civilian secretary of one of the military services...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

And your point? Are you suggesting that his sexuality will some how prevent him from doing the job or should disqualify him from consideration? Could I ask you to explain what your concern here is...and what "freak show" are you referring to? This has nothing to do with the Republican primary.

Are you suggesting that of all the hundreds, maybe thousands of people that could have been chosen based on merit..this person was chosen for any other reason than he is openly gay?

The answer I expect, will confirm to you and everyone, why so many people have you on ignore.

as I've said many times on this board , military is being destroyed and that's why I am only really interested in doing a few things . One of those things being the rebuilding of the military . It has been destroyed in the last 2 terms of mrobama and Social reengineering . Next step is for 'mabus' to force women in combat on the Marines .

GFB wrote:Are you suggesting that of all the hundreds, maybe thousands of people that could have been chosen based on merit..this person was chosen for any other reason than he is openly gay?

The answer I expect, will confirm to you and everyone, why so many people have you on ignore.

and good question , hundreds maybe a thousand or more qualified people in the USA military and a homosexual has been picked . Oh well , hope the next 'CiC' can fix things up again .

Jeb and Lindsey Graham have a list of hermaphrodites ready to take over.

Well this will certainly help downsize the Army and our enemies are getting a good laugh out of it.

ralph wrote:

GFB wrote:Are you suggesting that of all the hundreds, maybe thousands of people that could have been chosen based on merit..this person was chosen for any other reason than he is openly gay?

The answer I expect, will confirm to you and everyone, why so many people have you on ignore.

and good question , hundreds maybe a thousand or more qualified people in the USA military and a homosexual has been picked . Oh well , hope the next 'CiC' can fix things up again .

I believe the Sec. of the Army is a civilian position.

might be Steve , if so that means that there are MILLIONS of qualified normal people but mrobama picks a 'homosexual' !!

makes sense , I think that the 'mabus' sec of the Navy that I mentioned is a civilian .

ralph wrote:might be Steve , if so that means that there are MILLIONS of qualified normal people but mrobama picks a 'homosexual' !!

No Ralph. Not "might be". Is. Just like the Sec. of Defense who is his boss. And he will have to be confirmed by the Senate. Who is controlled by the Republicans last I heard.

well good , lets see what the 'rinos' do Steve .

Shut down the federal goverment!

ok with me , shut'er down !!

The new uniforms should be fabulous!

Well that broke me up fitzroy!

GFB wrote:Are you suggesting that of all the hundreds, maybe thousands of people that could have been chosen based on merit..this person was chosen for any other reason than he is openly gay?

The answer I expect, will confirm to you and everyone, why so many people have you on ignore.

Tell you what, GFB, what I am suggesting is that his sexuality is actually irrelevant. Was that considered as part of the selection criteria? I don't know. But, I would say that it is hard to image it wasn't at least a consideration from a political POV. However, I believe that was far from the only consideration. I don't doubt that there are thousands of people (will, several hundred million actually) that COULD have been chosen. Many (that Obama never heard of even) are probably as qualified or better in some (or even many) regards. But, as I find myself asking so often here, so what? Is there a rule that requires a choice strictly based on merit? The President gets to chose based on whatever criteria he believes is best.

My point was simply that being gay is in no way a disqualifier for the job nor does it in any way conflict with his duties. I have no position on the appointment. I don't know anything about the man. I doubt I will research him. But, until someone can give be a credible reason his sexuality should even be a subject of discussion, I remain convinced that a persons sexuality is irrelevant to this discussion.

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. But, certainly not the ONLY one and most likely not the major one. Since his sexuality does not impact his qualification for the job it is certainly a valid political consideration. Most political appointments get made on this basis. On the Liberal side one issue seldom determines a choice for an important position...not so much on the Right because of their social agenda, litmus test issues and requirement for strict Political Correctness (got to follow the party line).

So, yes, there were surely many qualified people to chose from. That does not establish that this choice was made JUST because the guy was openly gay. And you know what, you have nothing to support your contention that he was chosen just because he was gay...it is just your opinion.

I don't know how many people have me on ignore. I don't actually care. I don't understand people who are so unsure of their beliefs that they just can't be exposed to any contrary input. Seems to me that putting someone on ignore is the ultimate admission that you have no ability to respond effectively. I guess I consider each delicate little Conservative flower that just CANNOT tolerate the truth to be a win for truth and reason. You know, ignore is a silly thing. If it was really intended to accomplish anything it would make it impossible for the person being ignored to see one's posts rather than the reverse. Of course, then you would give up the opportunity to insult people who can't respond. Where's the fun in that?

Tell me, why DO so many people have me on ignore? Are you people really that fragile (or is it petty). And yeah, I know I am abrasive.

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.

guy was chosen because he is homosexual , part of mrobama plan , probably a part of his legacy . You make good points in your last post Greg .

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.

If you didn't read my post why are you responding. I read every word of yours before I respond.

Assume what you like...you have no idea what I said but please, I have never known the fact that they didn't know what they were talking about stop one of you people.

You people are talking about his sexuality because you see it as a way to attack Obama. You don't care about the appointment...just a chance to slam Obama. Or, it could be the insecurity you people feel about your sexuality. I don't know (nor do I care) about the process used to make the decision. It wasn't anything I had input to. How is it he was chosen over heterosexual men? BECAUSE SEXUALITY IS IRRELEVANT in this case...it has no bearing on the ability to perform the job.

How about an explanation of why you think it is so important. You are saying he should have chosen a heterosexual (as near as I can tell) so why is a heterosexual inherently a better choice than a gay? Make your case or admit you are just slamming Obama. Be honest.