Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong answer.Have you?Have you researched his qualifications?obama did this for one reason only, it's yet another in your face gesture to anything traditional. The most qualified guy happens to be gay? Like the most qualified top picks for cabinet positions are all leftist/socialist/blacks? If you believe that you will believe anything.
I didn't think so.
why do you care?
why do you care why I care?
I'm interested and curious - what people's thoughts are - is that a foreign concept to you?
Wow, a one second google search after the fact. LOLHave you?Have you researched his qualifications?obama did this for one reason only, it's yet another in your face gesture to anything traditional. The most qualified guy happens to be gay? Like the most qualified top picks for cabinet positions are all leftist/socialist/blacks? If you believe that you will believe anything.
I didn't think so.
Yes I have.
Mr. Fanning has been the acting under secretary of the Army as the current secretary, John McHugh, prepares to leave his post. Mr. Fanning’s Defense Department jobs have spanned the services: He has served as Air Force under secretary, deputy under secretary of the Navy and deputy chief management officer of the Navy.
“I can’t think of any civilian with more experience with the services, having served in senior positions in all three,” said Derek Chollet, a former assistant defense secretary. “He understands all of their unique cultures and processes.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/eric-fanning-civilian-adviser-named-secretary-of-the-army.html
See above.Wrong answer.Have you?Have you researched his qualifications?obama did this for one reason only, it's yet another in your face gesture to anything traditional. The most qualified guy happens to be gay? Like the most qualified top picks for cabinet positions are all leftist/socialist/blacks? If you believe that you will believe anything.
I didn't think so.
It's incumbent upon you to do so, given you're the one questioning his qualifications.
Of course, if he were heterosexual, you wouldn't be questioning his qualifications; as is the case with heterosexuals, a gay person's sexuality is but an insignificant part of who he is, having nothing to do with his qualifications.
Why is this an issue?
It's not an issue but something others might want to talk about.
I posed the question whether the was truly the most qualified, or, if he was chosen over the others BECAUSE he is Gay (in light of recent events in the country, where gays and transsexuals are all being glorified) -
I'm not say he's NOT qualified, I'm just asking if we believe he's truly the MOST qualified and/or best choice.
Why don't you research his qualifications before you start a thread? Can you give your bigotry a ten minute rest, or is that too much?
Because I don't have to....
I'm not a bigot either- you don't even know me......
You are the bigot (defined: person who is intolerant of others who hold a differing opinion)
I'm just asking the question, you are on the attack.
lol, you don't have to research his qualifications, that's your admission of not knowing them?
That's also your admission of not reading your own link, because his qualifications are in it.
It's not an issue but something others might want to talk about.
I posed the question whether the was truly the most qualified, or, if he was chosen over the others BECAUSE he is Gay (in light of recent events in the country, where gays and transsexuals are all being glorified) -
I'm not say he's NOT qualified, I'm just asking if we believe he's truly the MOST qualified and/or best choice.
Why don't you research his qualifications before you start a thread? Can you give your bigotry a ten minute rest, or is that too much?
Because I don't have to....
I'm not a bigot either- you don't even know me......
You are the bigot (defined: person who is intolerant of others who hold a differing opinion)
I'm just asking the question, you are on the attack.
You don't have to know anything about the guy to engage in a discussion about him? lol,good one.
People can also engage in conversation to learn. So, no, you don't have to know...
You could have learned from reading your own link.
Your attempt to silence someone by name calling does not amuse me anymore, that's the only resort you have when unable to respond intelligently..because you're ranting and raving and angsting over something that is none of your business, to wit: someone else's sexuality.
and you bigots amuse me.
now go pretend that christianity demands you be a bigot.
Fanning has served as the deputy undersecretary and deputy chief management officer for the Department of the Navy, deputy director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, undersecretary of the Air Force, and later as the acting U.S. secretary of the Air Force. Most recently he served as chief of staff to the secretary of Defense and acting undersecretary of the Army.
He does not sound like he is totally without a clue how things work.
It would appear that he does have at least minimal qualifications to do the job.
Now providing he does the job as required and with the best interest of the country in mind, what difference does it make who he chooses to commit himself to in a personal relationship.
Your attempt to silence someone by name calling does not amuse me anymore, that's the only resort you have when unable to respond intelligently..because you're ranting and raving and angsting over something that is none of your business, to wit: someone else's sexuality.
and you bigots amuse me.
now go pretend that christianity demands you be a bigot.
The OP was totally legit by attempting to induce examination regarding political decisions and discussing it in a civil manner.
You miss the point.Why is this an issue?
It's not an issue but something others might want to talk about.
I posed the question whether the was truly the most qualified, or, if he was chosen over the others BECAUSE he is Gay (in light of recent events in the country, where gays and transsexuals are all being glorified) -
I'm not say he's NOT qualified, I'm just asking if we believe he's truly the MOST qualified and/or best choice.
Why don't you research his qualifications before you start a thread? Can you give your bigotry a ten minute rest, or is that too much?
Because I don't have to....
I'm not a bigot either- you don't even know me......
You are the bigot (defined: person who is intolerant of others who hold a differing opinion)
I'm just asking the question, you are on the attack.
lol, you don't have to research his qualifications, that's your admission of not knowing them?
That's also your admission of not reading your own link, because his qualifications are in it.
I read it myself. Am saying you don't have to know a topic inside and out to ask the question or start a topic.
I'm not saying (AGAIN!) that he is not qualified. (I've said this 3 times now at least...)
I'm asking if he was the MOST qualified.
Maybe there is no way to tell - but either way I obviously know his qualifications from the article. You are more interested in trashing me then discussing the topic, so you have no room to talk....
You miss the point.It's not an issue but something others might want to talk about.
I posed the question whether the was truly the most qualified, or, if he was chosen over the others BECAUSE he is Gay (in light of recent events in the country, where gays and transsexuals are all being glorified) -
I'm not say he's NOT qualified, I'm just asking if we believe he's truly the MOST qualified and/or best choice.
Why don't you research his qualifications before you start a thread? Can you give your bigotry a ten minute rest, or is that too much?
Because I don't have to....
I'm not a bigot either- you don't even know me......
You are the bigot (defined: person who is intolerant of others who hold a differing opinion)
I'm just asking the question, you are on the attack.
lol, you don't have to research his qualifications, that's your admission of not knowing them?
That's also your admission of not reading your own link, because his qualifications are in it.
I read it myself. Am saying you don't have to know a topic inside and out to ask the question or start a topic.
I'm not saying (AGAIN!) that he is not qualified. (I've said this 3 times now at least...)
I'm asking if he was the MOST qualified.
Maybe there is no way to tell - but either way I obviously know his qualifications from the article. You are more interested in trashing me then discussing the topic, so you have no room to talk....
If he were heterosexual you wouldn't be 'asking' at all, the notion of someone 'more qualified' wouldn't be in play.
I think he is no more of a threat than anyone else when it comes to keeping his homosexuality out of his job.Fanning has served as the deputy undersecretary and deputy chief management officer for the Department of the Navy, deputy director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, undersecretary of the Air Force, and later as the acting U.S. secretary of the Air Force. Most recently he served as chief of staff to the secretary of Defense and acting undersecretary of the Army.
He does not sound like he is totally without a clue how things work.
It would appear that he does have at least minimal qualifications to do the job.
Now providing he does the job as required and with the best interest of the country in mind, what difference does it make who he chooses to commit himself to in a personal relationship.
If he keeps his sexuality out of his job, fine. Do you really think he will do that?
No, one is at liberty to start a thread absent any research at all.Why don't you research his qualifications before you start a thread? Can you give your bigotry a ten minute rest, or is that too much?
Because I don't have to....
I'm not a bigot either- you don't even know me......
You are the bigot (defined: person who is intolerant of others who hold a differing opinion)
I'm just asking the question, you are on the attack.
You don't have to know anything about the guy to engage in a discussion about him? lol,good one.
People can also engage in conversation to learn. So, no, you don't have to know...
You could have learned from reading your own link.
Like I said, I did read the link, I was just countering your comment that someone has to do research on any topic before starting a thread.... reading 1 article is not research (in my mind...)
I think he is no more of a threat than anyone else when it comes to keeping his homosexuality out of his job.Fanning has served as the deputy undersecretary and deputy chief management officer for the Department of the Navy, deputy director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, undersecretary of the Air Force, and later as the acting U.S. secretary of the Air Force. Most recently he served as chief of staff to the secretary of Defense and acting undersecretary of the Army.
He does not sound like he is totally without a clue how things work.
It would appear that he does have at least minimal qualifications to do the job.
Now providing he does the job as required and with the best interest of the country in mind, what difference does it make who he chooses to commit himself to in a personal relationship.
If he keeps his sexuality out of his job, fine. Do you really think he will do that?
Do you worry about a straight guy leading by his sexual preference alone?
Fanning has served as the deputy undersecretary and deputy chief management officer for the Department of the Navy, deputy director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, undersecretary of the Air Force, and later as the acting U.S. secretary of the Air Force. Most recently he served as chief of staff to the secretary of Defense and acting undersecretary of the Army.
He does not sound like he is totally without a clue how things work.
It would appear that he does have at least minimal qualifications to do the job.
Now providing he does the job as required and with the best interest of the country in mind, what difference does it make who he chooses to commit himself to in a personal relationship.
If he keeps his sexuality out of his job, fine. Do you really think he will do that?
The nomination reveals that a certain portion of the right in America resist change, any change that conflicts with their view of what they believe what America should be. The world changes inevitably, and people change with it.
What was destroyed? And why do liberals act like God and make declarations from the mountain tops?No, one is at liberty to start a thread absent any research at all.Because I don't have to....
I'm not a bigot either- you don't even know me......
You are the bigot (defined: person who is intolerant of others who hold a differing opinion)
I'm just asking the question, you are on the attack.
You don't have to know anything about the guy to engage in a discussion about him? lol,good one.
People can also engage in conversation to learn. So, no, you don't have to know...
You could have learned from reading your own link.
Like I said, I did read the link, I was just countering your comment that someone has to do research on any topic before starting a thread.... reading 1 article is not research (in my mind...)
Of course, the thread author has only himself to blame when the premise of his thread is completely destroyed as a consequence of his ignorance of the topic – indeed, it happens quite often, this thread being one of many examples.
No, one is at liberty to start a thread absent any research at all.Because I don't have to....
I'm not a bigot either- you don't even know me......
You are the bigot (defined: person who is intolerant of others who hold a differing opinion)
I'm just asking the question, you are on the attack.
You don't have to know anything about the guy to engage in a discussion about him? lol,good one.
People can also engage in conversation to learn. So, no, you don't have to know...
You could have learned from reading your own link.
Like I said, I did read the link, I was just countering your comment that someone has to do research on any topic before starting a thread.... reading 1 article is not research (in my mind...)
Of course, the thread author has only himself to blame when the premise of his thread is completely destroyed as a consequence of his ignorance of the topic – indeed, it happens quite often, this thread being one of many examples.
