Obama nominates openly gay man to lead Army

[Bonzi]

No one is at liberty...LOL!

 

[jillian]

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.

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..
The OP was totally legit by attempting to induce examination regarding political decisions and discussing it in a civil manner.

its a standard liberal tactic, they all do it, up to and including HRC.

that's so funny coming from rightwingnuts. lmao

 

[Redfish]

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?

Like what? Not showing up with his partner at a social gathering of his co-workers, where most of them are accompanied by their opposite sex spouses and significant others?

I don't care if he takes his boyfriend to a social gathering. But I don't want him having a pro-gay agenda as part of being secretary of the army.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I think he is no more of a threat than anyone else when it comes to keeping his homosexuality out of his job.
Do you worry about a straight guy leading by his sexual preference alone?

The difference is that being straight is a normal human condition. Homosexuality is an aberation, a mental unbalance, a hormonal deficiency.

Only to a bigot.

 

[jillian]

No one is at liberty...LOL!

your idea of "liberty" is that everyone do what you want.

you aren't really smart enough to tell others what to do. to be fair, most people shouldn't pretend to have the wisdom to rule other people's lives.... which is why you should go about your business and not obsess over who other people love.

 

[Redfish]

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.

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..
The OP was totally legit by attempting to induce examination regarding political decisions and discussing it in a civil manner.

its a standard liberal tactic, they all do it, up to and including HRC.

that's so funny coming from rightwingnuts. lmao

You consider the truth funny? Weil you are a liberal, so I guess that explains it.

 

[jillian]

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?

Like what? Not showing up with his partner at a social gathering of his co-workers, where most of them are accompanied by their opposite sex spouses and significant others?

I don't care if he takes his boyfriend to a social gathering. But I don't want him having a pro-gay agenda as part of being secretary of the army.

in other words he should be a bigot. wanting to be treated the same as everyone else isn't a "pro-gay agenda". and the problem with the wacky right is that you think it is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Like what? Not showing up with his partner at a social gathering of his co-workers, where most of them are accompanied by their opposite sex spouses and significant others?

I don't care if he takes his boyfriend to a social gathering. But I don't want him having a pro-gay agenda as part of being secretary of the army.

Since you consider equal rights for gays the 'pro-gay agenda' you are both out of touch with reality and in for some big disappointments.

 

[jillian]

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.

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..
The OP was totally legit by attempting to induce examination regarding political decisions and discussing it in a civil manner.

its a standard liberal tactic, they all do it, up to and including HRC.

that's so funny coming from rightwingnuts. lmao

You consider the truth funny? Weil you are a liberal, so I guess that explains it.

if you ever told the truth i'd be the first to acknowledge it. until that time, your question is hypothetical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Homosexuality is an aberation, a mental unbalance, a hormonal deficiency." Only an aberrant mind would think so.

 

[Redfish]

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?

I think he is no more of a threat than anyone else when it comes to keeping his homosexuality out of his job.
Do you worry about a straight guy leading by his sexual preference alone?

The difference is that being straight is a normal human condition. Homosexuality is an aberation, a mental unbalance, a hormonal deficiency.

Only to a bigot.

Wrong, its not bigoted to acknowledge that some people have mental issues. I don't discriminate against gays, bi-polar people, down syndrome people, people with dementia, or any other mental problems.

Its not bigoted to recognize illnesses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This guy has already been in this sort of work for years. Successfully. His 'gayness' as a liability has already been shown to be non-existent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Not all change is good" does not alter the fact that the world changes inevitably.

 

[Redfish]

"Homosexuality is an aberation, a mental unbalance, a hormonal deficiency." Only an aberrant mind would think so.

Wrong, only an educated, well functioning mind realizes that homosexuality is not a normal human condition. About 3% of the population suffers from this condition. They are due our sympathy and empathy, but that does not require that we call their condition "normal".

 

[Bonzi]

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.

If he were heterosexual you wouldn't be 'asking' at all, the notion of someone 'more qualified' wouldn't be in play.

In light of the media and news, yes, I think it is a point of discussion.
If it's such a non-issue then why do the news articles etc. point out that he is gay?
Obviously, it's a topic of interest to be discussed -

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Like what? Not showing up with his partner at a social gathering of his co-workers, where most of them are accompanied by their opposite sex spouses and significant others?

I don't care if he takes his boyfriend to a social gathering. But I don't want him having a pro-gay agenda as part of being secretary of the army.

Tell us what the single most disturbing (to you) component of the 'pro-gay agenda' is.

 

[Redfish]

This guy has already been in this sort of work for years. Successfully. His 'gayness' as a liability has already been shown to be non-existent.

Great, I hope he is successful.

The question in the OP was whether he was the most qualified for the job, or whether his appointment was some kind of PC statement from obama.

 

[Bonzi]

No one is at liberty...LOL!

your idea of "liberty" is that everyone do what you want.

you aren't really smart enough to tell others what to do. to be fair, most people shouldn't pretend to have the wisdom to rule other people's lives.... which is why you should go about your business and not obsess over who other people love.

yet again, someone that doesn't know me but passing judgment and being intolerant.
You are a great spokesperson.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Homosexuality is an aberation, a mental unbalance, a hormonal deficiency." Only an aberrant mind would think so.

Wrong, only an educated, well functioning mind realizes that homosexuality is not a normal human condition. About 3% of the population suffers from this condition. They are due our sympathy and empathy, but that does not require that we call their condition "normal".

So what limitations should we put on the 2% of people who have green eyes?

 

[defcon4]

No, one is at liberty to start a thread absent any research at all.

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.

Assumed office
June 30, 2015
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Brad Carson
Chief of Staff to the U.S. Secretary of Defense
In office
February 17, 2015 – June 30, 2015
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Mark Lippert
Succeeded by Eric Rosenbach
24th Under Secretary of the Air Force
In office
April 18, 2013 – February 17, 2015
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Erin C. Conaton
Succeeded by Lisa S. Disbrow
Acting United States Secretary of the Air Force
In office
June 2013 – December 2013
Succeeded by Lisa S. Disbrow (acting)
Personal details
Born Eric Kenneth Fanning
July 2, 1968 (age 47)
Kalamazoo, Michigan, U.S.
Alma mater Dartmouth College (B.A.)
Occupation government official
Eric Fanning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Let's see. He has never served in the Armed Forces, his military related experience has a span of 2 years. Sounds like a good choice for leading the largest branch of the US military. Well qualified, I am sure any general officer would be lesser qualified.