February 14, 2010

Cheneys on the Sunday Morning Shows
— Gabriel Malor

It's Valentine's Day and the Cheneys are ripping apart the Obama Administration. Could this morning have been any better?

First up, was Liz on Fox News Sunday:

"What you have is a situation where, unquestionably, we did go through a period in this nation's history where we dealt with terrorism as a law enforcement matter. And as Attorney General Mukasey has pointed out recently, when we prosecuted and successfully convicted people after the '93 World Trade Center bombing, after the East African bombing, what it got us was 9/11 and 3000 dead Americans.

"So the notion that while the Bush Administration did this, I find it perplexing as a political argument to hear that from this administration. I think they're confusing the facts and the law with respect to many of those terrorists, but it's not surprising because there is a level of incompetence that you're seeing from people like Brennan and others that scares the American people. So I'm not surprised they're trying to divert attention."

Gateway Pundit has video where she also smacks around Juan Williams.

Second, Dick Cheney was on ABC's This Week talking about the same thing, plus Afghanistan and Iraq. Cheney laughed outright at the Vice President's suggestion that Iraq would be one of Obama's "greatest achievements." He excoriated the Obama Administration for deciding to Mirandize the Christmas Day bomber.

When asked about DADT, Cheney stated:

"Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' when I was Secretary of Defense. I think things have changed significantly since then. I see that Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated his belief that we ought to support a change in the policy. So I think, my guess is the policy will be changed.

"I think the society has moved on. I think it's partly a generational question. I say, I'm reluctant to second-guess the military in this regard, because they're the ones that have got to make the judgment about how these policies affect the military capability of our units. And that first requirement that you have to look at all the time is whether or not they're still capable of achieving their mission, and does the policy change--i.e., putting gays in the force--affect their ability to perform their mission? When the chiefs come forward and say, 'We think we can do it,' then it strikes me that it's -- it's time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral Mullen said that."

Incidentally, the results from the Military Times' annual DADT survey of active-duty troops have been released. There is a major methodology issue with this survey--it is drawn from info voluntarily offered by subscribers of the Military Times publications, rather than a random sample of active-duty troops. Until the DOD completes its year-long review, however, it is the only info we've got where active-duty soldiers, sailors, and marines are asked about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Asking actual troops seems like an important first step to me.

51% of active duty service members opposed allowing gays to serve openly in the military. That's down from 63% in 2004. 30% favor allowing gays to serve openly, up from 24%. 20% were neutral or declined to answer, up from 11% in 2004.

Like Dick Cheney, a majority (55.7%)of respondents of the Military Times survey believed that military leaders should decide whether the policy should be changed or kept in place. Only 14.6% said that Congress should decide. 14.8% said it was the President's decision.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:56 AM | Comments (102)
Post contains 598 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Dick Cheney got a good chuckle out of Biden's claim that Iraq would be one of the Obama Admin's greatest achievments....said they should thank Bush for the favor.

Posted by: loppyd at February 14, 2010 09:00 AM (pGELo)

2
Biden is cussing mad over Cheney bitch-smacking him and his boss all over the airwaves today.

Good.

Posted by: Blazer at February 14, 2010 09:01 AM (t72+4)

3

I'm in the Army and I'm gay!

That don't mean I swish and sway! (old SNL bit)

Posted by: Soldier at Ft. Dix at February 14, 2010 09:01 AM (Nu1ow)

4
Biden is cussing mad over Cheney bitch-smacking cock-slapping him and his boss all over the airwaves today.

Good.

Posted by: Blazer at February 14, 2010 01:01 PM (t72+4)



FIFme

Posted by: Blazer at February 14, 2010 09:02 AM (t72+4)

5 Liz, wow! Is that Cheney daughter?  Sure doesn't look like the wife I remember.
What a bitch slapping, and the little prick Juan deserves every bit of it, everyday.  That twit would have been off the air years ago, except for his rather dark skin.

Posted by: Kemp at February 14, 2010 09:05 AM (2+9Yx)

6 Cheney 2012.
Either one will do.

Posted by: real joe at February 14, 2010 09:05 AM (WjerO)

7 Cheney brings a bouquet of whoop ass for Biden and Barry.

Liz throws in a box of chocolate covered nancy girls.

Liz is coming on strong.....would love to see her run.






Posted by: JavaJoe at February 14, 2010 09:08 AM (e9JZd)

8 And that first requirement that you have to look at all the time is whether or not they're still capable of achieving their mission, and does the policy change--i.e., putting gays in the force--affect their ability to perform their mission?

As usual, Cheney gets it dead right, and in just a few words.  I don't know if gays openly serving in the military would degrade unit cohesion or overall effectiveness, but that is the only consideration.  I wish the same rule was applied to Joe Biden and the effectiveness of our government.  He'd last a femtosecond. 

Posted by: pep at February 14, 2010 09:08 AM (0K3p3)

9
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams was released from a U.S. hospital on Friday after having to flee his own dysfunctional government-run health care system in order to obtain a critical heart surgery. While the procedure Williams needed does exist in Canada, it is widely unavailable.

This is due to the inevitable rationing (i.e., 'death panels') that occurs when government takes over health care and makes things more "fair"--by destroying competition, limiting consumer choice and creating shortages of doctors. This is the system Obama wants to duplicate here.

And such blatant special treatment for politicians is adding fuel to the fires of discontent in Canada, where citizens are forced to suffer through a broken, inferior government system that only works for the most superficial health care needs...while the leftist elites who force this insanity on everyone else get to be exempted and fly here for quality free market care.

Canadians will gladly spend 80 bucks a night drinking beer, but when it come to contributing to their health, they won't pay a cent. It is for this I disagree with the "collective" having to pay for this system.
Communists are evil and should be eliminated.

Posted by: sickinmass at February 14, 2010 09:09 AM (Dxfei)

10 GALLUP LUNACY UPDATE:

While every other pollster (including the uber-left CBSNews/WAPO) has Obama's poll numbers plummeting, life is BEAUTIFUL over at Gallup.  In the last week, his poll numbers have SURGED by 6 points, from 47 to close at 53% today.

Inexplicably, at the same time, Gallup announces that only 36% of Americans approve of Obama's handling of the economy (by far the #1 issue to Americans).  Only on International Affairs does Obama score above 50% coming in at 51%.

So, on every issue Obama is below 51% and on the BIG issues, he is in the 30's.  Yet, In Gallup-land, his overall approval is 53%.  In other words America is saying, "We HATE everything you are doing and stand for but we LUUUURV YOU you sexy boy!".

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that Gallup also works for the IPCC in their Climate-modeling division?

Posted by: Bill MItchell at February 14, 2010 09:10 AM (kEBiX)

11

Cheney is a cast iron SOB.

good

Posted by: torabora at February 14, 2010 09:10 AM (og0kX)

12
Dick Cheney is wrong.

And he can go fuck himself. He was a lousy vice president and George Bush sucks for keeping him. Neither of them gave a shit about the future of the GOP and they used us (the conservatives) to get elected.

Bush & Cheney Legacy: President Barack Hussein Obama

Posted by: This is... at February 14, 2010 09:10 AM (a4A0f)

13 @12
 Switch to decaf.  And more meds.

Posted by: pep at February 14, 2010 09:11 AM (0K3p3)

14 Yeah, Liz is the daughter, I knew that!  Lynn is wife.

Posted by: Kemp at February 14, 2010 09:12 AM (2+9Yx)

15

 He was a lousy vice president

How so?

Bush & Cheney Legacy: President Barack Hussein Obama

You can't leave McCain out of that equation.  Or Deputy Dawg Huckabee. 

Posted by: loppyd at February 14, 2010 09:12 AM (pGELo)

16 Tomorrow Obama will be taking credit for the 1968 moon landing and will be awarded 14 Olympic Gold Medals to go with his peace prize.

Posted by: robtr at February 14, 2010 09:12 AM (fwSHf)

17

51% of active duty service members opposed allowing gays to serve openly in the military. That's down from 63% in 2004. 30% favor allowing gays to serve openly, up from 24%. 20% were neutral or declined to answer, up from 11% in 2004.

Like Dick Cheney, a majority (55.7%)of respondents of the Military Times survey believed that military leaders should decide whether the policy should be changed or kept in place. Only 14.6% said that Congress should decide. 14.8% said it was the President's decision.

Really?  55.7% don't believe in civilian control of the military?  That's rather scary.  

Two other results of interest 57% of the respondents said they were serving with a homosexual, but 89% of those have declined to report the individual.  I'm not sure how that squares with the 50%+ that sasy DADT maintains good order and discipline.  Generally just ignoring regulations isn't considered to be very effective in maintaing discipline.



Posted by: chad at February 14, 2010 09:16 AM (WNcvq)

18
Of course. But the point is Bush left us high & dry for 2008.

After they won in 2004 they didn't give a shit about the party or their supporters. We stood there like assholes defending that admin...because the admin wouldn't defend itself. They didn't care.

I never bought into that neo-con crap or believed it even existed. But now in retrospect, we were duped by Republicans who are pro-business, pro-illegal immigration (because it's good for business' bottom line), pro-war, pro-defense, pro-spending, and pro-taxcuts. What a fucked up set of core values.


Posted by: This is... at February 14, 2010 09:18 AM (a4A0f)

19 Canadians will gladly spend 80 bucks a night drinking beer, but when it come to contributing to their health, they won't pay a cent. It is for this I disagree with the "collective" having to pay for this system. When your government confiscates half of your income you can talk to me about not contributing to my free healthcare . FYI Williams is getting ripped hard up here as well .

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at February 14, 2010 09:19 AM (a9UO0)

20

We stood there like assholes defending that admin...because the admin wouldn't defend itself. They didn't care

I'll give you that.

Posted by: loppyd at February 14, 2010 09:19 AM (pGELo)

21
Tomorrow Obama will be taking credit for the 1968 moon landing and will be awarded 14 Olympic Gold Medals to go with his peace prize.

Posted by: robtr at February 14, 2010 01:12 PM (fwSHf)





The only moon Obama can take credit for landing on is Larry Sinclair's.

Posted by: Blazer at February 14, 2010 09:19 AM (t72+4)

22 "Really? 55.7% don't believe in civilian control of the military? That's rather scary. " You are a f#cking idiot.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at February 14, 2010 09:19 AM (V/EYZ)

23 Can you okay open gays in the military and at the same time outlaw the gay sex act? A run of gonorrhea thru a unit might do some damage to the effectiveness of that unit. Also, there is still the same old question about a select group being able to achieve sexual gratification while the others can't, and what effect that would have on cohesiveness. If we're going to have open gays in the military, maybe we need openly "gay brigades."

Posted by: bergerbilder at February 14, 2010 09:20 AM (S1Ttj)

24 I can't believe he's taking credit for winning the war....

Posted by: JavaJoe at February 14, 2010 09:22 AM (e9JZd)

25 Really?  55.7% don't believe in civilian control of the military?  That's rather scary.

I don't think they are saying the military is outside of civilian control.  The implication is that the civilians defer to military expertise in deciding the issue.  Their deference is their option, not the military's. 

Posted by: pep at February 14, 2010 09:22 AM (0K3p3)

26 Have a good day, M&Ms.  It's nice out and I need to get into the sunshine.

Posted by: loppyd at February 14, 2010 09:26 AM (pGELo)

27
I can't believe he's
taking credit for winning the war....

Posted by: JavaJoe at February 14, 2010 01:22 PM (e9JZd)





The MSM and the left are desperate to give this guy a win no matter what since he's failed on just about everything else. I am not shocked at all they are trying to give him all the credit for a victory, nevermind the fact that he fought tooth and nail the entire time he was in Congress to undermine and smear our last president our troops and their commanders.

Posted by: Blazer at February 14, 2010 09:26 AM (t72+4)

28
Haven't our top leaders in our military shown how foolish and inept they are?

To wit: Malik Nadil Hassan.

Purely out of political correctness and 'diversity, they, in their esteemed military judgment, not only ignored his ties with Islamofascist terror and his anti-Americanism, they promoted him.

Our top brass is so inept, we still, after 8 years, have soldiers and troops being blown up by 12th century barbarians. When they can figure out how to beat the muslim barbarians (with an annual budget of over $500B), then they think about tackling other far less important issues in the military.

Posted by: This is... at February 14, 2010 09:27 AM (a4A0f)

29 27
I can't believe he's
taking credit for winning the war....

Posted by: JavaJoe at February 14, 2010 01:22 PM (e9JZd)

 

That's the only thing he didn't "inherit" I guess

Posted by: robtr at February 14, 2010 09:28 AM (fwSHf)

30 When you push Sheriff Joe out as the foreign policy genius and military might guru, you deserve to be whipped like a little bitch. The Cheneys can wipe Joe and O up in their sleep

Posted by: Frank G at February 14, 2010 09:32 AM (4X0aT)

31 the military also did not want to become integrated. But they followed the executive order of their Commander in Chief and it made them and the country a better place for all.

Posted by: Noah at February 14, 2010 09:33 AM (mhD2v)

32 @22

Fuck yourself.  That is exactly what that answer says.  In case you haven't read the Constitution lately it names the President as Commander in Chief and gives Congress the responsibility for establishing the rules and laws for the governance of the armed forces.  When you say they shouldn't have input then you put the military outside civilian control.

Shiteater.

Posted by: chad at February 14, 2010 09:35 AM (WNcvq)

33

Dick Cheney:  Hey, Biden..get a load of this..

*Zip*.......*thud*

Slow Joe:  Holy shit. It even has "Louisville Slugger" branded onto it....... Hey don't swing that at me

*WHAP*...*THUNK*

Slow Joe: Ow...fuck Dick, put that damn thing away!!

Dick Cheney: That was for being a stupid asshole and taking credit for Iraq..*reel..reel...reel...reel...tuck ...ZIP!!!* Don't make me take it out again

,

Posted by: Meet the Cock at February 14, 2010 09:35 AM (AnTyA)

34

This is . . . @28

Where'd all that PC crap come from? Civilians.

Posted by: arhooley at February 14, 2010 09:36 AM (23n/G)

35 Iraq is probably going turn out to be one of Jimmy Carter's greatest achievements.

Posted by: Walter Mondale at February 14, 2010 09:37 AM (YX6i/)

36

Our top brass  ass  is so inept,

 

FIFY

Posted by: beedubya at February 14, 2010 09:38 AM (AnTyA)

37 The Generals, seeing which way the wind is blowing, are echoing what the CiC wants.  Give credit to Clinton, he at least tolerated his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs arguing against him in public on the issue. 

Posted by: Hatchet Five at February 14, 2010 09:38 AM (DTffv)

38 And now I too must duck out to add memory to my computer.

Posted by: arhooley at February 14, 2010 09:39 AM (23n/G)

39 @25

I know you are probably correct in your assumption.  On polls like these questions are easily open to misintreptation.  Despite my answer to Mr. Pink @22 I don't really think that the military is planning a coup or anything of that nature.  I was making a point about the results, that is also why I included the bit about the lack of reporting of gays to the Chain of Command.

Posted by: chad at February 14, 2010 09:39 AM (WNcvq)

40 Biden's wife, Morgan Fairchild, says Dick Cheney is kakapoopoo.

Posted by: eman at February 14, 2010 09:40 AM (4tixt)

41
oh yeah, and thanks, George, for giving us Robert Gates

Posted by: This is... at February 14, 2010 09:40 AM (a4A0f)

42 Posted by: chad at February 14, 2010 01:35 PM


You can go boil yourself in oil, you pathetic little punk.  I'm guessing you weren't in the uniformed ranks the last time the whole "gays in the military" thing became a big issue - or ever.  The servicemembers thinking uniformed leaders "should" decide does not equate to "no civilian control".  Period.  End of fucking discussion.  Now go fuck off and die.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at February 14, 2010 09:42 AM (DTffv)

43

Haven't our top leaders in our military shown how foolish and inept they are?

To wit: Malik Nadil Hassan.

This is the real problem.  They'll have to quadruple the JAG corps if they get rid of DADT. 

Posted by: AmishDude at February 14, 2010 09:43 AM (Vo2Ef)

44

Today:

"Biden suggests that Iraq will be one of Obama's greatest achievements."

Several months from now after Obama pulls troops out of Iraq and it plummets back into civil war and chaos.

"Biden suggests that Bush should never have put us in Iraq in the first place and that Obama's "positions" on the Iraq war were right all along."

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at February 14, 2010 09:46 AM (Vu6sl)

45

If you're on high blood pressure or heart medication than you really shouldnt watch this.

Posted by: Blazer at February 14, 2010 09:47 AM (t72+4)

46 45, Is Maher fine tuning his upcoming USO tour?

Posted by: eman at February 14, 2010 09:49 AM (4tixt)

47 Cheney just puts it right back in Obama/Biden's face--spotlights their dangerous ineptness--and the general public gets it. Cheney is a badass.

Posted by: nikkolai at February 14, 2010 09:49 AM (U0lNn)

48 Anybody who does not appreciate what Dick Cheney and his family have done for this country has a great big hole in their head.

Posted by: don't mess with Dick at February 14, 2010 09:51 AM (Ue9UN)

49
Is Maher fine tuning his upcoming USO tour?

Posted by: eman at February 14, 2010 01:49 PM (4tixt)




Do the Taliban and Al Qaeda even have a USO like organization ?

Posted by: Blazer at February 14, 2010 09:52 AM (t72+4)

50 Go Liz! That's gonna leave a mark!

Posted by: it'smedude at February 14, 2010 09:55 AM (t2gGa)

51

28 Yes and no.  Unfortunately, due to the social climate in which we live, if any military person would have blown the whistle on Hassan they would have wound up with a destroyed life -- the media, academia, society itself, would have called for that person to be pilloried, and the administration would have acquiesced.  The military has been nearly destroyed by society's pc rules.  A lot of shit happens with women who are in (and don't get me wrong, I was in, my girls are in -- women can serve and serve well, but man, not every woman is going to be professional and the ones who aren't are a freaking joke and a problem).

As for gay people in the ranks -- yes, they are there, and if they're decent troops they should stay (which means if they don't mind their p's and q's you wind up having to lie and cover for them -- which is a discipline problem and honestly, sets them up to be blackmailed, which isn't very good either).  If all gays were professional or at least non-predatory, it would be no problem with openly serving gays in the military -- but there are some that predatory and/or shit stirrers, and they are a big soup sandwich (and since they are a protected group as per society's pc rules, well, it could really cause problems).  We really can't have protected "special" groups in the military -- we already have too much of that now (I'd argue it isn't good for society either, but in the military that's x100).

As for losing to the barbarians: well, we're at war with them.  People get killed in wars.  We have been very fortunate to not have suffered high casualty rates (and we haven't; I know to the individuals' families that might not seem so, but we haven't).  But society seems to have a problem with every troop lost -- they seem to forget that this is a professional military and possibly getting killed is part of the job description -- so the military can't have casualties without a cry of "we're losing the war, we're getting people killed! the horror! the horror!"...JFC on a bike.

 

And people in the military do recognize this as a problem that has been put upon them by society -- they see society as a very big reason for a lot of their troubles...so of course they don't think society should be telling them what to do (now, that's just been the take on it by the military folks I know).  The pc bullshit and over sensitive crap from civilian society has got. to. go.

Posted by: unknown jane at February 14, 2010 09:57 AM (5/yRG)

52 Happy Hallmark Holiday.

Posted by: samizdat at February 14, 2010 09:57 AM (PD1tk)

53 Maher and his ilk will never get it until he and/or one of his family members become victims of a domestic suicide bomber. However, even then, he would still blame it on Bush that it actually happened. 

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at February 14, 2010 09:57 AM (Vu6sl)

54
Maher and his ilk will never get it until he and/or one of his family members become victims of a domestic suicide bomber. However, even then, he would still blame it on Bush that it actually happened. 

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at February 14, 2010 01:57 PM (Vu6sl)





Maher is the prime reason I have refused to have anything to do with HBO for the past several years.

Posted by: Blazer at February 14, 2010 10:02 AM (t72+4)

55 52 Happy Hallmark Holiday. ------------- Thanks. It's an easy one for me because my wife buys herself something and claims I gave it to her.

Posted by: Anachronda at February 14, 2010 10:03 AM (LD+ZJ)

56 Saw a snippet of liz cheney this morning against juan and I realized that fox now assumes global warming is a given.  But I was shocked at how unprepared she was with the facts.  Heck, someone should send her the copious amounts of information on this blog.  It is almost as those she didn't want to go there and challenge the religion.  she was as strong as she could be but it looked weak.

Posted by: curious at February 14, 2010 10:06 AM (p302b)

57 "52 Happy Hallmark Holiday.

Posted by: samizdat at February 14, 2010 01:57 PM (PD1tk)"

Actually, Valentine's day is the feast day of St. Valentine so hallmark didn't invent the holiday, the Catholic church invented it to honor St. Valentine.  The MSM conveniently forgets that we are celebrating the feast day of a saint.

Posted by: curious at February 14, 2010 10:09 AM (p302b)

58

# 57,

The MSM might forget who is celebrated on Valentine's Day, but the Sowdis sure don't.

Posted by: RickZ at February 14, 2010 10:13 AM (Kqw0g)

Posted by: curious at February 14, 2010 10:22 AM (p302b)

60 I shall Feast then today for a ST

Posted by: bob_hussein_dole at February 14, 2010 10:24 AM (DLaJY)

61 Who the fuck disses Cheney?  For reals, yo. 

If you have a problem with them you've got a problem with my devastating elbows.

Posted by: yambles at February 14, 2010 10:25 AM (rxaXW)

62

They dont call him Dick Cheney  for nuthin'...........

http://tinyurl.com/nly7xn

 

 

Posted by: di butler, sexual opportunist at February 14, 2010 10:29 AM (S3xX1)

63 "51% of active duty service members opposed allowing gays to serve openly in the military. That's down from 63% in 2004. 30% favor allowing gays to serve openly, up from 24%. 20% were neutral or declined to answer, up from 11% in 2004."

Let's see; 51% + 11% == 62% which given the rounding errors evident is insignificantly different from the 63% that disapproved in 2003.

What a shock!!!!

Seems to me, some of the respondents either know someone gay and for whatever reason don't want their opinion to become known AND/OR some are skeptical that particular respondents' answers will become known to Command (and THEY might be known/assumed to be gay) and want to have a career.

Does anyone believe that the answers given by respondents to a questionnaire known and approved by Command will never be known?

If so, please contact me as I have an old bridge located in Brooklyn, New York that I wish to sell at a reduced price.

Posted by: jakee308 at February 14, 2010 10:35 AM (puYmU)

64 @42

You would assume wrong.  I actually was an E-6 at the time, but beyond that it's not my fault that a) you can't read and b) are completely unfamiliar with the Constitution.  Thanks for playing though shitbird. 

 


Posted by: chad at February 14, 2010 10:35 AM (WNcvq)

Posted by: curious at February 14, 2010 10:43 AM (p302b)

66 oh...oh...oh...OW...OW...OW...OW...

Posted by: Lt. Go Ahead and Ask at February 14, 2010 10:46 AM (ZpmXe)

67 I'm fine with leaving the DADT thing up to the military, in theory.  But the problem is that in light of the Hassan debacle it's pretty clear that political correctness has begun to run rampant (in the upper ranks, anyway), so that makes me look this thing with a jaundiced eye.

My understanding is that it's been the administration pushing to remove DADT with some military leaders supporting that notion -- not a request made by the rank and file military up the ranks and forwarded to the administration.  If I were a general worrying about budget cuts, I guess I'd be tempted to say the "right" things to the media, too.

At the end of the day, is this a friggin' priority? 

Posted by: Y-not at February 14, 2010 10:53 AM (X69zM)

68 Does anyone believe that the answers given by respondents to a questionnaire known and approved by Command will never be known?

Posted by: jakee308 at February 14, 2010 02:35 PM (puYmU)

The answer to this stupid question is YES. I took many random surveys over 20 years of service. My name was never on any of them so you tell me how command would ever know who answered what way?

Posted by: Bill R. at February 14, 2010 10:56 AM (EhlQq)

69 62

They dont call him Dick Cheney  for nuthin'...........

http://tinyurl.com/nly7xn

Stop that, girl. I admire the man's achievements. I don't need to develop an inferiority complex.

Posted by: 141 Driver at February 14, 2010 11:01 AM (JFNQ7)

70 "Posted by: This is... at February 14, 2010 01:10 PM (a4A0f)"

had a little too much bullshitbutter on your toast this morning? 

Posted by: prettypinkfluffypanties at February 14, 2010 11:03 AM (LZ4ZN)

71 @68

I'm not disputing your answer, but I don't think the question was that stupid. 

In high school I participated in a (supposedly anonymous) survey conducted by Johns Hopkins researchers that was conducted without parental permission.  When I told my mom some of the questions, which were intensely personal and inappropriate in nature, she raised a stink and demanded they pull my survey responses.  Lo and behold, they were able to do so.  Turned out we were given coded surveys. 

Any time there's a survey given where the participants are drawn from a known pool (as opposed to completely randomly selected people from an unknown pool) you have a potential to track the answers back to the respondents.  I'm not saying that happened to you, but if your employer is conducting the survey of employees, then the opportunity is there. 

Posted by: Y-not at February 14, 2010 11:05 AM (X69zM)

72

I spent seven years and change in the military, split between two services (USMC 99-03, Army 03-06).  In both services I was an infantryman, which is about the be-all and end-all of military machoness.

The only people I ever saw DADT used against were shitheads who the command were happy to get rid of anyway.  If a guy was good to go, nobody cared.  If they change the policy, there'll be some initial friction, but it'll work itself out.

And if I can put my two cents in, the fact that they think a purely military policy should be attended to by military leadership isn't anything to shit kittens about.

Posted by: Secundus at February 14, 2010 11:05 AM (WuvMD)

73 64  You are a fucking liar, and don't comprehend much to boot.  IF you had really been around then, you would remember well the great antipathy in the ranks for PC Bullshit being foisted on the armed forces by a newly elected CiC who was a fucking draft dodger.  A lot of good people got the fuck out because of his shit.  Congress saved us all a lot of grief by putting the ban on homosexuals in the ranks into Federal law.  Politicians like Obama and the fuckwits in Congress can institute whatever they fucking want, but that in no way means that anybody in uniform has to to like it or think it wise.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at February 14, 2010 11:09 AM (DTffv)

74

Cool Facts About Dick Cheney:

Dick Cheney once forced gunpoint a doctor to administer chemotherepy.  After forty-four doses and ninty minutes, he wandered off, murmuring "It's good, but I'll stick to blow and tequila."

 

Posted by: Cincinnatus at February 14, 2010 11:11 AM (euuyg)

75 Gee, bill, getting awfully angry over my 'stupid question' aren't you?

It couldn't be that my math bothered you? Couldn't be that maybe, just maybe some of your 'random' surveys weren't so random?

Why the flame? Me, I don't usually bother with stupid questions posed by the anonymous. I almost didn't bother with your very angry response to a question but it was quite surprising that you're so SURE that EVERY survey you've ever answered was never known to be authored by yourself.

There are circumstances which can almost eliminate the possibility of the answers to a questionnaire NEVER being correlated with the author but I have a feeling that at least SOME of your's didn't take place under those circumstances.

Never say never, it makes you look ... stupid.

Posted by: jakee308 at February 14, 2010 11:12 AM (puYmU)

76 The only people I ever saw DADT used against were shitheads who the command were happy to get rid of anyway.


And the way the policy is set up, you can boot them only if you have PROOF they are queer.  As in catching them in the midst of a homosexual act.  They can go march in the local gay pride parade, and that doesn't prove a darn thing.  So unless the troop is a complete shitbird or got really really stupid, it just isn't worth the hassle.  In my combat tour we had enough problems just with the chicks getting knocked up and sent home; we didn't need a bunch more sex issues making things even more complicated.  So count me as a "no" vote on repealing DADT.

Posted by: Hatchet Five at February 14, 2010 11:15 AM (DTffv)

77 Repealing DADT would be a big fucking mistake...There is already a huge overhead costs to having women in combat units...Commanders have to spend a lot of time dealing with boys and girls issues...What I saw in twenty years?  Hmmmh, half a dozen pregnancies from just one ship during the Gulf War, many females filing EEO complaints like they change shirts, counseling a female with regard to her catching VD using the same toilet as her roomate, distracted males too busy trying to get laid to do their jobs, officers of both sexes losing careers because lets face it, fucking is fun but when depoyed in a senior subordinate role it leads to problems, its called fraternization in the UCMJ.  Sex rings, prostitution etc...Ok, my point is that repealing DADT will bring even more sexualization of military service.  More work for Commanders who have to deal with the problems that will come with overt homosexuality...As well, many many very religious troops in the military who will choose different career paths as a result...Net negative by a big number...

Posted by: If I can't eat it or fuck it I piss on it at February 14, 2010 11:16 AM (lxg2b)

78

FYI The trolls are out in force across the blogosphere this morning.

Posted by: Cincinnatus at February 14, 2010 11:23 AM (euuyg)

79

If you think the sodomy lobby will stop with repealing dadt, you're a fool.  They'll push for spousal benefits for partners and allowing the  transgendered to cross dress and everything else the gay mafia is cramming down America's throats.  BTW, I served w/ people who were "open" at different levels and didn't have a problem because they didn't wear rainbows on their sleeves which is what the gay mafia will keep pushing for.

Posted by: ccruse456 at February 14, 2010 11:24 AM (3pv79)

80 FYI The trolls are out in force across the blogosphere this morning.

Well, you gotta' figure about 75% of them are from the DC metro area working in government jobs.  They're snowed in.  Nothing else to do but troll the conservative web sites.

Posted by: Y-not at February 14, 2010 11:26 AM (X69zM)

81 Gaybots in the military will be a disaster of Cartererian poprtions. Disgusting.

Posted by: Threadjacker at February 14, 2010 11:27 AM (C39a6)

82

carterian

proportions

 

Posted by: Threadjacker at February 14, 2010 11:27 AM (C39a6)

83

As Jane said, remove the protection of the protected groups and you will remove most of the problems. I have worked with all stripes of people in the military over the last 11 years, and the problems have stemmed from lack of consequences for poor performance or discipline problems. This is true from ANY group of people. However, when there is a, real or perceived, tiered response based on demographic, moral is negatively affected. This is the only problem I have with the dissolution of DADT. The only homosexuals I have seen kicked out of the military were those who acted inappropriately, but under DADT as a pretext. However, if DADT is removed, that pretext is also removed and I am pretty sure they will join the ranks of those who are able to act (inappropriately) with near impunity.

Posted by: Lando034 at February 14, 2010 11:28 AM (MgNZB)

84

Fag Mafia????

Pinky rings galore, eh?

Posted by: Threadjacker at February 14, 2010 11:28 AM (C39a6)

85 It's all about completing the mission in the military...If it does not add to success in battle, it's fucking dead-weight...These goddamn democrats think the military is their plaything for social experiments.  Always have, worthless fuckers...Yeah, I know this goddamn Admiral is a kool-aid drinker...Frankly, a Naval Officer is not qualified to make this kind of decision...They need to think about driving their ships and leave the warfighting to others more qualified...

Posted by: If I can't eat it or fuck it I piss on it at February 14, 2010 11:39 AM (lxg2b)

86

90% of ratings come from the media.

Potatoe.............hahahahahah.....stupid....idiot.

Corpseman..........................move on.

IMO Bush Cheney were good. The last eight years meme is more appropriately, the shitty years since the whore liberals took the house and senate.

 

 

Posted by: kansas at February 14, 2010 11:40 AM (kG2DU)

87 After seeing Liz Cheney lay waste to Juan Williams unfilled journalistic dreams I have a suggestion for Juan...He should find a truck-stop and give blow-jobs for a nickel each until he gets his self respect back...

Posted by: If I can't eat it or fuck it I piss on it at February 14, 2010 11:42 AM (lxg2b)

88 I'm ashamed to say that I've been ignoring this DADT controversy cause I really don't understand it.   Am beginning to think based on reading your comments that the administration doesn't understand it either, that they sort fo have a disconnect with the military manifesting itself in this issue.

Posted by: curious at February 14, 2010 11:43 AM (p302b)

89 the administration doesn't understand it either, that they sort of have a disconnect with the military manifesting itself in this issue.

The Atlantic Basin is smaller than the disconnect between the Marxist-in-Chief and the uniformed services.


Posted by: Hatchet Five at February 14, 2010 11:48 AM (DTffv)

90 i would much rather have had Cheney as President than Bush. (I know, the moonbats say that actually was the case. If only.)

Posted by: Luca Brasi at February 14, 2010 11:58 AM (sHSdO)

91

Posted by: jakee308 at February 14, 2010 03:12 PM (puYmU)

There may have been a couple in classroom situations where an instructor may have been able to distinguish my handwriting from others but any I took that were further reaching such as unit-wide or base-wide and larger were completely anonymous. They may know who the surveys were sent to but they don't know who answered them. And yes, I am aware they can put things on individual surveys that will tell them who that particular survey was sent to.

I wasn't angry, I just thought it was a stupid question, further diminished by the bridge for sale. 

Posted by: Bill R. at February 14, 2010 12:01 PM (EhlQq)

92 Has anyone noticed the latest liberal talking point going around. "You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts." Saw Biden using that one yesterday and have seen it cropping up in Letters to the Editor and comment sections. Generally it's used as a cover for unsourced and unsubstantiated "facts," to which the writer in speaker in question then adds, "don't debate me on my opinions, debate me on my facts." Once again, we are asked to blindly accept the lib premise on every argument. We're fools if we continue to do it.

Posted by: Bitsko at February 14, 2010 12:47 PM (8/KZN)

93 RE:  DADT.  Screw the Pentagon Palace Princes and the CIC, let the troops decide.  They are the one who will have to live with the decision.

Posted by: GarandFan at February 14, 2010 01:14 PM (IpRh/)

94 Cheney/Cheney 2012 Because Fuck You is so much better than I'm Sorry.

Posted by: allswell at February 14, 2010 02:21 PM (uTkZD)

95 Never ceases to amaze me how much influence and how powerfully such a tiny group has managed to manipulate society without any attempt at logic or persuasion.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 14, 2010 04:18 PM (PQY7w)

96 Love the father daughter tag team.  If I were Chrissy Boy Matthews,I might even say that for an hout or so  there I forgot that one was a lesbian and the other was Darth Vader!  Whoo boy.  Pour it on Cheneys; you're speaking truth to power etc.  These are good people with a clear vision of the way things are.

Posted by: Corncob Supporter at February 14, 2010 04:19 PM (ktYjH)

97 Corncob- Wrong daughter. Liz is married with a whole litter of young'uns.

Posted by: di butler, sexual opportunist at February 14, 2010 07:24 PM (S3xX1)

98 Personally if some guy wants to blow the shit out of some taliban f*ckers while wearing women's panties underneath his uniform i say good for him.

But, i'm not in the military, and it's up to them. too often people confuse don't ask don't tell to mean "no gays allowed." that's not at all what it is, it's DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL. And it's analogous to any number of other policies which aim to suppress "individuality" while serving in favor of cohesion, teamwork, etc..

That said, Cheney has always been a guy who speaks his mind and is not afraid to take (and articulately express) unpopular positions and I respect him greatly for it. I think one of the Bush administration's greatest mistakes was not allowing him more open reign to publicly defend and explain policies. Had he been allowed to be more out there and open (or simply had pushed for it, I suspect his deep sense of loyalty and honor prevented him from doing so as well) I feel he never would have been undeservedly made into this bogeyman to the left.

Posted by: LikeATimeBomb at February 14, 2010 09:35 PM (d50Il)

99 why would anyone care what liz cheney thinks about anything?  her only claim to fame seems to be being the spawn of satan.  congratulations, please tell us your thoughts????

Posted by: liberal loon at February 15, 2010 12:41 AM (cUrR0)

100

My main objection to ending DADT is that we really have more important things to worry about.  Like winning wars, and stuff. 

Why not push for open gays in the NFL or NBA?  Use that as your social science lab.  Let's see how an NBA team would respond to an openly gay player. 

The Obumbles administration shows their priorities - Iraq, get out as soon as humanly possible; Afghanistan, dick around for months before making a decision; changing DADT, forge ahead boldly.  They make the leadership of Chrysler and GM look innovative, decisive, and competent. 

Posted by: Penultimatum at February 15, 2010 07:15 AM (98agg)

101

Just look wht Gays did to the priesthood

 

Posted by: Bill at February 15, 2010 03:02 PM (guRzd)

102 Like Dick Cheney, a majority (55.7%)of respondents of the Military Times survey believed that military leaders should decide whether the policy should be changed or kept in place. Only 14.6% said that Congress should decide. 14.8% said it was the President's decision
____________________
Let's War Against Diabetes

Posted by: NTDiabetes at December 13, 2010 10:31 PM (C24u9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
131kb generated in CPU 0.0492, elapsed 0.3133 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.272 seconds, 230 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.