Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/eric-fanning-secretary-of-the-army/index.html? sp=tw091815ericfanningsecretaryofthearmy714PStoryL
ink



Disgusting. Obama continues his quest to undermine the safety of this country. First he grants amnesty to millions of criminals and now he wants leaders like this who won't hesitate to support him when he finally illegally declares martial law. Will this country be able to last long enough to get a strong republican President like Trump into the white house in January of 2017 or will Obama declare martial law first, suspend the Constitution, and declare himself "forever king"?

What is wrong with a gay man holding this position? Why are you focusing on his sexuality anyways, if you think he's unqualified give some reasons.

Dude, we're talking about Star.

Also, how can Obama both be a weak, ineffectual president and leader, and a dangerous dictator possibly able to destroy and control the US in the next 1 and a half years....its like Republicans want him to be both a bumbling fool and a evil, genius mastermind at the same time.

Amusing how you're lumping in all republicans instead of a minority. I coild make those kind of useless generalizations all day and we wouldn't get anywhere. I expect better from someone who criticized guys like TI and star for doing the same.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Amusing how you're lumping in all republicans instead of a minority. I coild make those kind of useless generalizations all day and we wouldn't get anywhere. I expect better from someone who criticized guys like TI and star for doing the same.

You can always find a couple reasonable people even in the most stupid and ridiculous movements, the excessive anti-Obama stance, particularly of the contradictory type I asked about, is extremely prevalent in the Republican Party, and amongst it's followers.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You can always find a couple reasonable people even in the most stupid and ridiculous movements, the excessive anti-Obama stance, particularly of the contradictory type I asked about, is extremely prevalent in the Republican Party, and amongst it's followers. His criticism is valid, tbh.

IMO I think it's a fair statement to say that most Republicans view Obama as largely incompetent and ineffectual (though I admit I haven't looked up any data to justify this belief). Can you justify the statement that they hold this view as well as the view that he plans to appoint himself the God King of America by declaring martial law like Star does? Because Star seems to actually be clinically insane.

Also, holy shit, Robtard isn't the one who came up with Forever King, Star did? haermm

Ahh, our resident clueless German who thinks he knows all about everything American-related comes in to bash all republicans right on scedule. Obviously, his post is not even worth replying to. Democrats are the ones who're destroying this country with their socialistic ways. Not republicans. Get that thru your thick ****ing skull, clueless one.

The democratic party was excessively anti bush so what's the difference? Most republicans dont hate Obama as much as they prefer someone else in office. I know only a few who really hate him.

Oh, and since nobody has asked this: what does him being gay have to do with anything? You didn't even mention its relevance in your post.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Oh, and since nobody has asked this: what does him being gay have to do with anything? You didn't even mention its relevance in your post. I have no problem with this as long as he makes the army fabulous.

Star, this isn't even a Democrat/Republican thing. We're asking if your problem is with his sexual orientation.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Star, this isn't even a Democrat/Republican thing. We're asking if your problem is with his sexual orientation.



Blame Bardock. He's the one who started bashing republicans.



I don't give a shit if someone is gay (as long as they don't try any f*g crap on me) but having a gay person in charge of our army tends to worry me, yes. I don't care how much qualified they say he is for job it still makes me concerned.

If he's qualified his sexual preference is irrelevant. The only complaint you can make iscthe possibility that this was done as a political statement.

Originally posted by Star428
Blame Bardock. He's the one who started bashing republicans.



I don't give a shit if someone is gay (as long as they don't try any f*g crap on me) but having a gay person in charge of our army tends to worry me, yes. I don't care how much qualified they say he is for job it still makes me concerned.

Why?

Originally posted by NemeBro
His criticism is valid, tbh.

IMO I think it's a fair statement to say that most Republicans view Obama as largely incompetent and ineffectual (though I admit I haven't looked up any data to justify this belief). Can you justify the statement that they hold this view as well as the view that he plans to appoint himself the God King of America by declaring martial law like Star does? Because Star seems to actually be clinically insane.

Also, holy shit, Robtard isn't the one who came up with Forever King, Star did? haermm

Do I have a statistical analysis of these contradictory views held by Republicans? No.

All im saying is that from watching Fox News, listening to Republican politicians and viewing commentary on these issues, I often notice that they oscillate between blaming Obama for being an ineffectual president who doesn't achieve what he and the US wants, and attacking Obama for allegedly being too effective and successful in what they perceive as a socialist agenda.

If your experience of that differs, fair enough. I shall not ask you to scientifically prove it.

You also don't have statistical analysis that proves what you actually stated either


I'm not sure what you've been watching that shows the Republicans going from "Obama is ineffectual" to "Obama is a mastermind".

Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Why?



Taken as an event by itself wouldn't bother me quite as much if not for the fact that Obama has been deliberately weakening our military in more ways than one. Like firing all of our best top military commanders:



http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-2015/military-purge-barack-h-obama-says-obey-him-not-the-constitution


This seems just like another part of his plan of weakening America. The military commanders he fired were loyal to the Constitution and the American people. They would never've used our military against American citizens whether Obama ordered them to or not. It just seems like he's putting people in leadership positions who will support him when the time comes that he will try to take our guns away and the American people fight back to defend their rights. Gays are often persecuted in this country so one of them in charge of our army would probably not be as loyal to the American people when that time comes because, in his mind, they are all the same people who has viewed him in a bad light ever since learning he was gay. I don't care if he took an oath to the Constitution or the people because Obama did the same thing when he became President and he breaks the law/Constitution all the damn time. Oaths don't mean anything to people of low morality (like gays, for instance).

Obama isn't intelligent enough to weaken America.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Obama isn't intelligent enough to weaken America.




While I certainly agree with you about Obama's low intelligence (he's a liberal democrat, afterall), how much intelligence does it take to know how to weaken a country when you're in charge of it?

I didn't say Obama possesses low intelligence, but he certainly doesn't have the Emperor Palpatine persona to strengthen or weaken anyone.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, how can Obama both be a weak, ineffectual president and leader, and a dangerous dictator possibly able to destroy and control the US in the next 1 and a half years....its like Republicans want him to be both a bumbling fool and a evil, genius mastermind at the same time.

Lets see he screwed Syria up good, Russia has flown in and strengthened Assad, and now Germany is paying the price as well as the rest of the EU. Oh yea, he did great!

Originally posted by psmith81992
Obama isn't intelligent enough to weaken America.

Do you think he has the desire or intention to weaken America?

Originally posted by Star428
Blame Bardock. He's the one who started bashing republicans.



I don't give a shit if someone is gay (as long as they don't try any f*g crap on me) but having a gay person in charge of our army tends to worry me, yes. I don't care how much qualified they say he is for job it still makes me concerned.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think he has the desire or intention to weaken America?

Epic Dodge, coward.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Epic Dodge, coward.

I didn't reply to your post, because it doesn't relate to mine. It's perfectly fine to think Obama is a weak and ineffectual president, it just becomes odd and contradictory when one also thinks he's a Socialist/Muslim mastermind

Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't reply to your post, because it doesn't relate to mine. It's perfectly fine to think Obama is a weak and ineffectual president, it just becomes odd and contradictory when one also thinks he's a Socialist/Muslim mastermind

So do you blame Obama/Hilary for wrecking Syria and now you have them banging down your front door?

How does it feel to have someone **** up and now you have to pay for it? Guess what thats what liberalism is in America and the world, ****ing this country and world up and now we have to fix it.

Better though for you, you can take advantage of that big German heart of yours and let these people into your homes and cook and provide for them.

Have you reached out to any humanitarian programs in Germany offering your hand via fiscal, time or offering your place up for displaced refugees? Or are you just a eHumanitarian on KMC, do you keep your doors locked to keep those scary Muslims out cause you don't know which one is ISIS or Al Queda?

Originally posted by psmith81992
The democratic party was excessively anti bush so what's the difference?


Well, while the democrats complained a ton about Bush, things were actually much more bi-partisan politically and more compromise happened in congress at the time- I mean, don't get me wrong, by historical standards it was pretty low, but similar to the level under Bill Clinton (and the number of filibusters jump up during Bill's time compared to his predecessors, but much less than Obama), and you had Democrats vote in favor of not just the Iraq war, but Bush's education reform (which turned out eh), medicare reform (which was a fairly good one by Bush), and such. Here's a chart of filibusters over time- you can see the very significant increase.


Under Obama, there is an unprecidented amount of blocking of completely mundane and routine things such as presidential appointments. Like the debt ceiling, was only ever intended to be a routine rubber-stamp (it is the equivalent of a company telling all it's creditors, "No, I won't pay you back the loans I already spent!". Nothing survives that), but the Republicans have twice gotten into fights over it, in order to try and stop his clearly-legally-passed policies that he had made central to his election campaign... including after his re-election, which was widely viewed as a referendum on said same policy. Indeed, even back during the debate of the health care plan, the part when they were supposed to be contributing, Republican planners were focused on continually delaying it as a way to sink it purely to turn it into 'Obama's waterloo'- using a healthcare debate that lasted months to not present their own version of healthcare (the only Conservative complete health plan I know of was proposed by Scott Walker- during this election cycle. Though I should mention the ACA is similar to a couple plans favored by conservatives in the 90s- it only seems to have become an abomination when Obama launched it), but as an attack on the opposing president who won a popular election on his support of just that topic, as their openly admitted political strategy.


And there's stuff like the Birther movement... which is just a racist group (that has support among elected Republican politicians) trying to deny that he's even a legitimate president in the first place. And in turn, when Republicans who actually were born in other countries with US presidents come up, barely batting an eye at them. Here's an articles that collects polls, that says Birther support ranges from the 30s to high 40% range among Republicans.


Basically, even though Obama won by a significant majority in both elections, larger than the amount George W. Bush viewed as giving him a mandate, a large portion of the Republican base refuses to even acknowledge he's a legitimate president- or legitimate American for that matter- and the Republican legislature has spent literally historic levels of effort into blocking him, not seen since the Civil War (which... well, let us never reach *that* bad). Any calls of 'weakness' should take into account that his opposition has resorted to a greater level of roadblocks than any in living memory (even for people who are 110+ years old), and yet even so he's managed to get a number of major policies past, ones with significant economic and health effect on the country.

Heck, the Iran deal? Remember the thing where they had a chance to do a review in the senate but couldn't get the votes? US Presidents have never had to go to congress for approval of such measures before, that literally only happened because Obama threw them a bone and knew that if he did not open the offer they'd just attack him over it and act like it was in their zone when it's always been an executive branch power.

He opened the possibility of being blocked when he did not have to.

Now, granted, offering your opponents the opportunity to stop you when you don't have to may not generally be considered the smarted move, but he did offer as a show of good faith, and it's not like that the Republican's level of opposition has accomplished much of anything- Indeed, there is so much effort going into blocking Obama, that they in turn are getting much less done than opposition parties normally do- because minority parties normally make deals with the majority, "Ok, we'll not-filiburster this and that if you throw us some votes on this." So I question the effectiveness of Republican tactics intelligence wise, since as they're unable to enact policy from their position either due to the climate they've set up, and Obama can do, while not much, a little, it just means that their opposition can manage to get stuff done but veeeery sloooowly, to their not getting stuff done.


And let's face it: That's why so many are going to Donald Trump and other 'outsider' candidates, because the Republicans are tired of their people not getting stuff done. And it's not because they aren't trying hard or don't have the will- Washington forbid, it's quite the opposite, they literally have historical levels of opposition!- it's because the US government is simply not set up to allow people in their position to get stuff done without compromise, and as long as they don't realize that and act accordingly, the same thing will happen, the same gridlock, as long as the position stays where it is.

Hate to bust your great speech, but Hilary is was the founder of the birther movement..

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/18/media-smears-trump-ignores-fact-that-hillary-clinton-started-birther-movement/

Sorry to crush your rant on "REPUBLICANS EVIL EMPIRE!"

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hate to bust your great speech, but Hilary is was the founder of the birther movement..

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/18/media-smears-trump-ignores-fact-that-hillary-clinton-started-birther-movement/

Sorry to crush your rant on "REPUBLICANS EVIL EMPIRE!"


How does that undo anything I said? Someone in Hillary's campaign (who hopefully got fired- note Hillary herself didn't say it)- in the campaign's poorest move- floating the idea, then very rapidly dropped it and distanced themself from it. Note how it was also floated during McCain's campaign, by his rival republicans, that his birthplace of Panama might disqualify him- and that was also dropped, for similar reasons (i.e. it was dumbass).

The Republicans then picked up and ran with it for the next 8 years, used it in political campaigns, and had over 40% of their people believe it at it's height, far above it's popularity among independents.


Note also how even the birther movement is just one part of the post. The historical levels of obstructionism isn't simply inferred from that, but rather comes from direct data on filibusters, and on routine measures that never got blocked in the past being opposed for the sake of obstructionism. Objectively measurable things, in short.


This is one problem with some objections I see, the assumption that instant-equalization can be reached simply by finding something vaguely similar on the other side. If there's evidence of something one group is doing far more, then mentioning the other side doing it a little doesn't erase how much they did it. Being able to find a little bit of dirt isn't a blank check. Both sides can do something wrong, and in those cases, one can still judge on who one feels is doing better/worse in that area.

Hilary started the birthers and Bill called Obama a thug from Chicago.

Nuff said

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think he has the desire or intention to weaken America?



Well, let's see, he lets millions of criminals stay here (many of whom are probably ISIS sleeper agents) while still not bothering to beef up border patrol which allows many more to keep coming in illegally. He removes loyal senior military officials in top positions for no justifiable reason and replaces them with inexperienced people who probably have no real loyalty to America. He significantly cuts back our military and its training (we now only have TWO combat ready brigades in the army for instance). He weakens the morale of the people in our armed forces. He refuses to strengthened our nation's outdated power grid from an EMP attack which would severely cripple us if it ever happened. He promotes racial instability with all of his and his liberal media's racial baiting tactics which also has led to our police officers being afraid to dotheir jobs properly so they can no longer protect us as well as they used to.... etc, etc, etc, etc,....



I could go on and on all night but of course you'll just handwave it all away as no big deal or just outright accuse me of lying. Hundreds of thousands of foreign troops are training right here our own soil. Which is a treasonous act. Jade Helm is a cover for what Obama is planning.Just read the article I linked to on the first page near bottom FFS to see what I"m talking about regarding him weakening America. It lists several of them I listed above. It doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together and see where all of this is headed. Libs don't care though as long as they keep getting welfare and food stamps Obama can do no wrong in their eyes so they don't want to even question his intentions. He constantly disregards the Constitution? Meh, they don't care. It's nothing more than a piece of paper to them with no real value or authority. They want their food stamps.



So yeah, in conclusion, he most certainly is doing his darndest to weaken America. Any idiot should be able to see that. Are all people in Germany as blind or dumb as you are? If so, I feel sorry for your country.

Originally posted by Star428
Well, let's see, he lets millions of criminals stay here (many of whom are probably ISIS sleeper agents) while still not bothering to beef up border patrol which allows many more to keep coming in illegally. He removes loyal senior military officials in top positions for no justifiable reason and replaces them with inexperienced people who probably have no real loyalty to America. He significantly cuts back our military and its training (we now only have TWO combat ready brigades in the army for instance). He weakens the morale of the people in our armed forces. He refuses to strengthened our nation's outdated power grid from an EMP attack which would severely cripple us if it ever happened. He promotes racial instability with all of his and his liberal media's racial baiting tactics which also has led to our police officers being afraid to dotheir jobs properly so they can no longer protect us as well as they used to.... etc, etc, etc, etc,....



I could go on and on all night but of course you'll just handwave it all away as no big deal or just outright accuse me of lying. Hundreds of thousands of foreign troops are training right here our own soil. Which is a treasonous act. Jade Helm is a cover for what Obama is planning.Just read the article I linked to on the first page near bottom FFS to see what I"m talking about regarding him weakening America. It lists several of them I listed above. It doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together and see where all of this is headed. Libs don't care though as long as they keep getting welfare and food stamps Obama can do no wrong in their eyes so they don't want to even question his intentions. He constantly disregards the Constitution? Meh, they don't care. It's nothing more than a piece of paper to them with no real value or authority. They want their food stamps.



So yeah, in conclusion, he most certainly is doing his darndest to weaken America. Any idiot should be able to see that. Are all people in Germany as blind or dumb as you are? If so, I feel sorry for your country.




Oh yeah, I left out a very important one. He also weakens us by making friends and bad deals with our longtime enemies (Iran and Cuba) while turning his back on our longtime allies (Israel); he also does it when he gives up 4 or 5 terrorists for 1 traitor.

So why is the title about him being gay then, if that's not the meaning of the thread?

LOL. Apparently you missed my post where I said that a person appointed as Secretary of the Army who is gay concerns me when you take into account what else Obama has done. Gay people have low morals as I've already mentioned. I don't want someone like that in charge of our army because any oath he took to protect the American people probably means very little to someone like him.

So his homosexuality makes him ineffective at holding the position how? You say that gays have 'low morals', tossing out a blanket statement with nothing to back it up. You must be new at how this whole argument thing works. If you want to make a point, you need evidence to support it. I'm honestly amazed that this thread is still open, but this place is one of the darker corners of the internet at times.

Yeah, at the point where the thread is 'gay people have low morals' then I don't think we have anything other than an endless set of arguments.

This is technically newsworthy in its own way, so does anyone have anything to say about it that's not just a blatant display of homophobia?

*Awaits Trump card*

"Blatant display of homophobia". LMAO. You must have me confused with someone else, mr.moderator. I don't fear gays. True, I don't like them but fear them? LOL. I fear them about as much as I fear you or anybody else on this biased libtard forum which is pathetically very little.



But hey, keep lying to yourself if ya like. Won't make a damn bit of difference to me.

Pedanticism does not improve your argument- homophobia is used to refer to negative attitudes to, dislike of or discrimination against gays, which you have rather blatantly shown here- and it has no value as the basis for a thread, let alone what it says about your character.

I'm actually fine with a gay man as Secretary of the army. I know quite a few men around SF. Gay men can be just as vicious just as normal men.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Apparently you missed my post where I said that a person appointed as Secretary of the Army who is gay concerns me when you take into account what else Obama has done. Gay people have low morals as I've already mentioned. I don't want someone like that in charge of our army because any oath he took to protect the American people probably means very little to someone like him.

I'm not going to respond to the content of this, as I doubt I'd still be a mod afterwards.

...So do you have anything related to his actual performance that says he shouldn't be Secretary of the Army?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think he has the desire or intention to weaken America?

Not really no. He's not some evil genius.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Not really no. He's not some evil genius.

But excluding the genius part, do you think he is evil?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But excluding the genius part, do you think he is evil?

No, I just think like most democrats/liberals, him and I have ideological differences.

Originally posted by Stringer
*Awaits Trump card*

https://simkl.net/episodes/63/6363006b21cfb5f1_w.jpg

Originally posted by NemeBro

Also, holy shit, Robtard isn't the one who came up with Forever King, Star did? haermm

Not sure if I was first, don't recall anyone else saying it first. But I wouldn't trademark it.

On topic: this thread is nothing but Star's homophobia coming out again

Star is so full of anger, I really think he needs god in his li-

oh wait.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary started the birthers and Bill called Obama a thug from Chicago.

Nuff said


One of Hillary's people mistakenly thought picking up an attack that one of Obama's democrat opponents in his senate race has used, and neither Clinton decided sticking with that was remotely wise or reasonable. They've also, clearly reconciled what differences they had.

I don't know why you think that excuses/erasing a large group picking up on it, running with it, having candidates publicly endorse it, and over a third of the party believing it.

Originally posted by Star428
Oh yeah, I left out a very important one. He also weakens us by making friends and bad deals with our longtime enemies (Iran and Cuba) while turning his back on our longtime allies (Israel); he also does it when he gives up 4 or 5 terrorists for 1 traitor.

Cuba? I don't see a narrative in which blocking Cuba from the last ten years or so makes much sense.

better a gay man than a straight lizard, i always say

also let me be the first to congratulate star on his new appointment

Originally posted by Bentley
Cuba? I don't see a narrative in which blocking Cuba from the last ten years or so makes much sense.





My point is that Cuba has always been our enemy in the same way Iran always has. Although it's true that Cuba doesn't hate us as much as Iran does, of course.

Originally posted by Star428
My point is that Cuba has always been our enemy in the same way Iran always has. Although it's true that Cuba doesn't hate us as much as Iran does, of course.

I don't see changing policies with historical enemies as necessarily a bad thing, for obvious reasons. Which doesn't mean I think it's something self-evident nor riskfree, I understand the wariness towards Iran.

It wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that at the same time he turns his back on our longtime friend, Israel. Making friends with our enemies seems to be a higher priority to him than keeping the friends we already have. I take Israel as our friend over Cuba and Iran any day.

Ok, pretty sure this topic is done. Closed.