What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Funny, it was considered a huge thing for Colin Powell and Tiger Woods to back Obama. And it was a big deal when the black owner of BET backed Hillary. But when a noted black female sociologist and philsopher comes out against Obama, it's no big deal......she's just a "woman with a nice rant".

That seems backwards. So goes the liberal mindset, I guess.

You can make as big a deal of it as you want. I disagree with it for many reasons, and you can make as big of deal of that as you want, too.

Colin Powell's endorsement was a big deal because he is a trusted voice and because he represents the opposition party. I think Tiger's endorsement was a big deal because Tiger almost never took a controversial stance about anything.

Still, those are endorsements, which in the grand scheme of things don't mean much at all. The only reason people care is because they're in the public eye.

I had never heard of this woman prior to reading this post.

As for her rant, I judge that solely on the content of her words. There's a fundamental disconnect in what she's saying - she's attributing a sole reason to vote for Obama as the only reason, and applying it to a broad constituency. Incorrectly, I would add. She notes that blacks only voted for him since he's black. I don't think history bears that out. If she had said blacks only voted for him because he was a Democrat, then she'd have a lot more evidence to back up her claim.

It's not the fact that she doesn't like Obama that's the issue, it's the motives she's ascribing to all the people who voted for him. She does so with extremely poor reasoning and logic, and her conclusions seem strongly influenced by her own biases and emotions (as she notes this was written on the eve of the election). I judge it solely on her words. If you removed any reference to her race and gender, I'd still reach the same conclusion.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Hmmm. I'm not sure this is smart politics. This article might also be titled: Obama Throws Most Vulnerable Democrats from Red States Under the Bus.

As if they weren't facing enough of a battle to maintain support from independents, now they have to worry about their own party? :eek:

Good...sorry but if I was Obama I would throw the spineless Dems under the bus...what have they dont to earn his respect and support besides having a D behind their name?

If Obama had done that with Health Care maybe that wouldn't have gone down in flames...
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Good...sorry but if I was Obama I would throw the spineless Dems under the bus...what have they dont to earn his respect and support besides having a D behind their name?

If Obama had done that with Health Care maybe that wouldn't have gone down in flames...
True - probably should have said, "I don't know if this is smart politics in the short term."
 
Funny, it was considered a huge thing for Colin Powell and Tiger Woods to back Obama. And it was a big deal when the black owner of BET backed Hillary.

She wasn't the frist African-American to speak out against Obama and she won't be the last. That she was black doesn't make her rant any more interesting nor less pointless.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

The law? I'm pretty sure the gay person getting murdered isn't the problem in that scenario.
No, the gay person isn't the problem. I never said he was. He's just the one whose life would be in danger. You don't think disliked people in platoons have been killed by their own given the opportune time during a battle? What % of those killings are ever investigated? Of those investigated, how many can be proven? Those words written down on a parchment designed to forbid something can't do much to protect you in the middle of chaos. The law won't stop that bullet or protect you from a "badly thrown" grenade.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

No, the gay person isn't the problem. I never said he was. He's just the one whose life would be in danger. You don't think disliked people in platoons have been killed by their own given the opportune time during a battle? What % of those killings are ever investigated? Of those investigated, how many can be proven? Those words written down on a parchment designed to forbid something can't do much to protect you in the middle of chaos. The law won't stop that bullet or protect you from a "badly thrown" grenade.

True. But if you're a gay person in the military who is worried about this, you still have the option to stay in the closet. It's not like the new policy is going to be "Ask everyone, Must tell."

That in no way excuses the bigotry of the other soldiers, of course.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

No, the gay person isn't the problem. I never said he was. He's just the one whose life would be in danger. You don't think disliked people in platoons have been killed by their own given the opportune time during a battle? What % of those killings are ever investigated?

So you're the saying the military is filled with guys incapable of working alongside folks they don't like - to the point of committing murder? I have a hard time believing this type of event is but a blip on the radar. Beyond that, do they then profile every person that falls into a category that would cause them to be the target of morons so as to prevent them too from enlisting?
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

No, the gay person isn't the problem. I never said he was. He's just the one whose life would be in danger. You don't think disliked people in platoons have been killed by their own given the opportune time during a battle? What % of those killings are ever investigated? Of those investigated, how many can be proven? Those words written down on a parchment designed to forbid something can't do much to protect you in the middle of chaos. The law won't stop that bullet or protect you from a "badly thrown" grenade.

Maybe they have, but that doesn't seem to help your point at all. If soldiers are killing fellow soldiers anyways because they hate them, then the problem isnt the gays, it is the soldiers themselves. Don't you think maybe the military had these same issues when they were forcefully desegregated by Truman...yet somehow it all worked out.

The whole thing wreaks of macho chauvinism...
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Back to the original question; I think it is business as usual. I think we are in the same boat now as we were two years ago, no less safer, no less unsafe and threatened. I think the world is tired of Obama, and his lack of international success has proven that. I am a little more upset that Obama turned out to be another liar by not keeping any of his campaign promises:

Transparency with Healthcare debates on CNN; turned out it was all done behind closed doors, closed to the public, with deals being made to North Dakota, Nevada and Louisiana. Heck, even Helen Thomas criticized Obama's administration for being the least transparent in her years of covering the WH at a WH press conference; that should tell you something.

Bipartisanship even with a super majority Obama could not rally the troops to pass Healthcare, and in doing so he polarized the nation further than Bushie ever did.

Jobs/Economy he campaigned in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana, specifically, on job creation. ".... it's the economy, stupid." Where are the 2 million jobs he promsied to create? Oh, they are now 2 million jobs saved buy his stimulus package. LOL.

Obama's endorsement stock is not worth much -> see the elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Obama needs to own-up, and stop blaming Bush (which is easy). I also think Obama is more of a divider pushing his social engineering... good things for all, but who is going to pay for it? Higher taxes for people and business are not what keep business in the US and hiring people.

Good luck to him though, poor bastihd's hair is already turned gray from the stress and pressure. He wanted it, he got it, but now he needs to do something for the good of all (not just his party) with it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Obama's endorsement stock is not worth much -> see the elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Obama needs to own-up, and stop blaming Bush (which is easy). I also think Obama is more of a divider pushing his social engineering... good things for all, but who is going to pay for it? Higher taxes for people and business are not what keep business in the US and hiring people.

He has been extremely centrist, and most leftists would argue he isn't "social engineering" anywhere near enough. http://www.newsweek.com/id/232167
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

He has been extremely centrist, and most leftists would argue he isn't "social engineering" anywhere near enough. http://www.newsweek.com/id/232167

LOL, oh come on now, citing the Obama biased Newsweek is like citing the Washington Times on the premise on being partial. You might as well quote Kieth Olberman or Rush Limbaugh. On social engineering, I agree with you, but I think it all goes back to having to increase taxes on businesses and middle-class people to fund these programs; idealists like these social programs, but really who wants to be punished and have to pay for those behind us, especially when the economy is in the dumper?

Far left, centrist, and the right, far-right all want their piece of the pie.

I think the real problem is that Obama is not centrist enough for the majority of America, yet he is not as far left as the RNC makes him out to be. I do think he is ineffectual and useless as a leader; I substantiate this with his continued campaigning (which he is good at) for social engineering yet seems bored when talking about Presidential things like national security or the job issues (I believe that is what will get him voted out of office too, IMHO).

Even with 40+ visits to the White House, the SEIU has gotten nothing on their return on investment; you know they put a lot of cash into Obama's campaign. Likewise, even with a super majotiry in the Senate and House Obama was ineffectual in getting his side to agree and sign on the Healthcare. So after one year, I think he has proven himself to be a lame duck nationally and internationally.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

LOL, oh come on now, citing the Obama biased Newsweek is like citing the Washington Times on the premise on being partial. You might as well quote Kieth Olberman or Rush Limbaugh. On social engineering, I agree with you, but I think it all goes back to having to increase taxes on businesses and middle-class people to fund these programs; idealists like these social programs, but really who wants to be punished and have to pay for those behind us, especially when the economy is in the dumper?

Far left, centrist, and the right, far-right all want their piece of the pie.

I think the real problem is that Obama is not centrist enough for the majority of America, yet he is not as far left as the RNC makes him out to be. I do think he is ineffectual and useless as a leader; I substantiate this with his continued campaigning (which he is good at) for social engineering yet seems bored when talking about Presidential things like national security or the job issues (I believe that is what will get him voted out of office too, IMHO).

Even with 40+ visits to the White House, the SEIU has gotten nothing on their return on investment; you know they put a lot of cash into Obama's campaign. Likewise, even with a super majotiry in the Senate and House Obama was ineffectual in getting his side to agree and sign on the Healthcare. So after one year, I think he has proven himself to be a lame duck nationally and internationally.

I agree with you that he has been a pretty bad leader, and quite ineffective at getting the legislation he would like to pass through. I only disagreed with your accusation that he was being too liberal and doing too much "social engineering." If anything he has completely hindered the health care bill from going too far left, put a ton of tax cuts in the stimulus bills, gave all kinds of money to bail out the banks and the auto industry etc. etc.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

LOL, oh come on now, citing the Obama biased Newsweek is like citing the Washington Times on the premise on being partial. You might as well quote Kieth Olberman or Rush Limbaugh. On social engineering, I agree with you, but I think it all goes back to having to increase taxes on businesses and middle-class people to fund these programs; idealists like these social programs, but really who wants to be punished and have to pay for those behind us, especially when the economy is in the dumper?

Far left, centrist, and the right, far-right all want their piece of the pie.

I think the real problem is that Obama is not centrist enough for the majority of America, yet he is not as far left as the RNC makes him out to be. I do think he is ineffectual and useless as a leader; I substantiate this with his continued campaigning (which he is good at) for social engineering yet seems bored when talking about Presidential things like national security or the job issues (I believe that is what will get him voted out of office too, IMHO).

Even with 40+ visits to the White House, the SEIU has gotten nothing on their return on investment; you know they put a lot of cash into Obama's campaign. Likewise, even with a super majotiry in the Senate and House Obama was ineffectual in getting his side to agree and sign on the Healthcare. So after one year, I think he has proven himself to be a lame duck nationally and internationally.

Obama has not been left enough for much of the Dem base...which means he can only be somewhat off from being centrist. Very many feel that Obama's healthcare is still too light, that he still hasn't made any moves against NAFTA, that he has not pulled the rug out on the military, and that he has pandered to wall street at every turn (with the last banks stance being an exception). Frankly the right wouldn't be happy with him under any circumstances. Things change...but the right complain about Obama breaking promises made during the campaign season which they complained about him making to begin with.

So Obama is not the far leftee that the right warned of. IMO his primary problems are that he's inappropriately being blamed for not pulling the magic economic rabbit out of the hat...and that he is appropriately being blamed of picking a handful of bad fights.
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

Obama has not been left enough for much of the Dem base....

How much of the base do you believe wants him to go further left? over 50%? He'll never get reelected if he goes any further to the left, lets see if he has any convictions. Oh wait I already know the answer to that
 
Re: Obama 9 -- Its Been a Whole Year Now

I believe it's inevitable that the ban on gays serving in the military will go away. It's time. President Obama risks nothing politically for advocating this change, people who will resist most vigorously didn't support him anyway and his base will be thrilled that he's finally gotten something "right."

As a practical matter, gays have served and are serving honorably, some in combat. The question is inappropriate sexually based behavior. The thought of an officer or NCO pressuring a young GI for sex is repellant. And it's equally repellant whether the sought after sex is hetero or homosexual.

The military has some pretty clear rules about sexual behavior. Remember the senior army drill instructor several years ago who was in a world of hurt because he was having sex with some of the female basics? It didn't matter who initiated the contact, whether the ladies were offering sexual favors to make their lives easier or if he was a predator, it was against the regs, period.

Similarly, 60 minutes did a segment a few years ago about a female B-52 pilot who was having an affair with a married enlisted man who was a member of her crew. I don't remember the results of her court martial, but she should have been removed from the service. Adultery is a punishable offense in the military. And sexual contact between officers and enlisted is frowned upon, even more so when the people involved are in the same chain of command. If a sergeant is hospitalized after a motor cycle accident and winds up dating his nurse, that's not approved of. But they aren't in the same chain of command. In the above mentioned case, the married enlisted guy WAS in the pilot's chain of command--and that made the potential impact on good order and discipline that much greater.

It's my understanding that the majority of prosecutions brought under "don't ask, don't tell" start with 3rd parties--people who have a grudge of some sort against the service member or who are jilted lovers. Not exactly people who should be in a position to end an otherwise honorable career.

The military has very direct and effective ways of communicating with its members. I recall in Air Force basic training, the only time an officer spoke to us was for the "Gay Briefing," although we used another adjective. A very uncomfortable Lieutenant gave us some history, some hypotheticals, the relevant regs and what was expected of us should we see or hear of some inappropriate behavior.

I was also required to attend briefings on drugs and race relations and to provide samples for "golden flow." These were not voluntary activities. Over the years, DOD has tackled and for the most part overcome resistance to minorities and women in the service, and they could do the same thing here.

As to hypothetical "accidental" killings of gay GI's, I think that is highly unlikely. I am aware of a situation at a Texas army base a few years ago in which some very young soldiers beat another soldier to death because they thought he was gay. IIRC they were court martialed and are in prison because of their crime. The people who serve in our military come from our society. They are not "farm raised" like catfish. That means it's possible some folks with pretty extreme views can get through the application process. But as I indicated above, the military can and does imbue its members with the appropriate attitudes, and it's been pretty successful in doing it. And when the regs regarding homosexuality are changed (as I'm sure they will be) then the new reality will be communicated directly and efficiently to all.

I came into the military because of the draft, and local boards didn't ask about sexual orientation in meeting their monthly quotas. Annecdotally, my understanding is that the vast majority of guys who tried to avoid being drafted by claiming to be gay, were in fact not. Over the years there were some guys in my units we all assumed were gay. And I'm confident most GI's nowdays know or think they know gay people they're serving with.

I've seen polling data which indicate that a majority of folks in the military can and will accept gay people on active duty. And the percentage of acceptance grows exponentially among younger service members. There's been a significant change in attitudes in just the last few years and younger GI's tend to reflect it. It's time to bury this old chestnut. It serves no useful function and (again annecdotally) seems to have hurt us.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top