Obama nominates first openly gay military service chief

a reply to: Annee

You questioned why would some one want the attention.

Not really an answer.

a reply to: Enochstask

No is a sign of peace and love.

a reply to: Annee

Actually I am asking the same question, beside he been a faithful member of the Democratic family since the Clinton years that's all you find about him.

I guess if Hilary wins the elections he will be able to stay for a while.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Annee

Actually I am asking the same question, beside he been a faithful member of the Democratic family since the Clinton years that's all you find about him.

I guess if Hilary wins the elections he will be able to stay for a while.

The question if he is using being openly gay?

Like using being black or a woman?

a reply to: marg6043

If that is all you can find out about him then you are not looking.

a reply to: Sremmos80

What can I say, when already he got all the backup he needs, Fanning's nomination received praise from Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, or LGBT, organization, my opinion doesn't matter at all, right? I guess I am not from the right groups right now.

and noticed an overall trend to neutralize the male dominated military establishment with active recruitment of female and gay male officers, it will take time to determine effects dynamics involved, remember dont ask dont tell didnt last long,

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Ok....so is this solely a political move for BHO

NOTHING the president does isn't without political gain.

I have nothing against that guy at all, but I really do think he got the job based solely on his sexual oreintation.

I mean look at his appointments elsewhere. Not a single one that was qualified.

Your theory isn't wrong completely wrong, but to consider Obama was not elected because he was black, but rather the message a black president sends to the Government is the same lines no?

Qualification isn't your real beef, there have been unqualified before. The resistance is he is gay right? Gay AND unqualified?

I'm TSG and run a considerable surveillance company the NSA is quite happy exists. It could eliminate US sex traffic crimes by 90-95% in the future and increase police response time up to 10x and even 'predict crime'. I created the company from the ground up with an algorithm I created. Being gay has almost never mattered, until some conservative asshole comes along and talks about all the jobs I will destroy for police officers, or how the company contributions to the American Army pales in comparison to ground troops. It's not that I even disagree. But people that know I'm gay before the fact I run a defense system all day that helps you sleep at night, tend to be more ungrateful someone 'gay' does that, than when they don't know that detail.


As a side note, I think gay people would make good spies. Many understand prosecution and hiding a part of their identity is something they can understand. They 'love acting' etc. Maybe that's ridiculous sounding to you. But gay people that can act 'straight' is already a confusing concept to most straight guys. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" reminds me of Mulan in so many ridiculous ways.

a reply to: imjack

Well thank you for telling me what I think.

Really I had no idea.

Glad that's sorted.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: imjack

Well thank you for telling me what I think.

Really I had no idea.

Glad that's sorted.

Without directly calling you unintelligent, I'm basically calling you a bigot. You think he can't do it because he's gay. I know you follow a lot of politics. I know you probably wouldn't know his name if it wasn't announced he was gay.

That last assumption was an assumption. Maybe you really DO care who the secretary is. My last assumption is if he wasn't gay, you would find another liberal reason to prosecute the liberal presidents decision to elect a liberal secretary.

It's only in offence to the last assumption, I find offence in your opinion of him being gay. Basically hating gay people is fine, but hating them because their affiliation to left wing giving them rights, and thus them not defaultly being republican, and thus, being non-patriotic, and a non-part of the military is a messed up assumption. I catch more criminals and warcrime criminals than straight people do, but even owning the company I make the distinction that the US forces is compromised as a Team Effort, and a gay leader wouldn't lead or harbor or cause any more disaster than a straight one.

a reply to: imjack

Well it's not like I haven't been called one of those before simply for questioning political Appointee's.

If I had a nickle.

a reply to: marg6043

But nothing about why, based on his past jobs, he shouldn't have gotten the nomination.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: marg6043

But nothing about why, based on his past jobs, he shouldn't have gotten the nomination.

Fanning is well familiar with the demands of the job, defense officials say, having managed Secretary Carter’s transition into the Department of Defense. He also served as undersecretary of the Air Force from 2014 and as acting secretary of the Air Force for six months prior to that. In 2009, he was appointed deputy undersecretary and deputy chief management officer for the Department of the Navy. He also served as the deputy director of the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.

“Eric served as my first chief of staff at the Pentagon, and it has been a privilege over the course of my career to work alongside him and watch him develop into one of our country’s most knowledgeable, dedicated, and experienced public servants,” Secretary Carter said in a statement Friday. “I know he will strengthen our Army.”

The current Secretary of the Army, John McHugh, seconded this view. “Since my earliest days in the Pentagon, I have consistently witnessed Eric demonstrate sound judgment and insight,” he said in a statement. “Our soldiers, civilians, and their families will benefit greatly from his leadership.”

www.csmonitor.com...

Who frickin cares? Is he a competent administrator? That's the question to be asked.

originally posted by: neo96

NOTHING the president does isn't without political gain.

I have nothing against that guy at all, but I really do think he got the job based solely on his sexual oreintation.

I mean look at his appointments elsewhere. Not a single one that was qualified.

I really don't think anyone in the military really cares.... a non-issue, but of course the news and White House will make it a big deal...

Good. There's too much testosterone infecting military decision-making, anyway. I very much doubt a 'gay-minded' Colon Powell would have invaded Iraq...

a reply to: imjack

Is interesting that you bring the question of qualification, I am sure that he have what is needed for a congress approval of his nomination or congress will look anti gay or along the lines, it is election years after all.

Now as for the good spy issue, I feel and this is personal that been gay it may no be an assets but actually a target, we all know that many countries do not do well with the issue of homosexuality, hate crimes still happen outside the US.

As the political angle of the appointment it has agenda all over and that is a fact, regardless of qualifications, now people will be obfuscated debating a controversial appointment and why this does very well for political game.

I will love to hear more about what you do without giving away information that will be against your job requirements, after all my husband works with certain sectors of intelligence and even I don't know half of what he does and the weapon systems he works with and we have been married for 34 years.

You run one of the companies that does surveillance for the NSA well that brings the issue of how much the private sector have a hold on government issues like the controversial surveillance.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Exactly!!!!!!!! great political move to keep the opinions far and away from presidential candidates for the time being, let the people debate the Obamas first open gay appointee.

a reply to: intrepid

The nomination is political first qualifications second, now the debatable part of it is Why now? and the reason of making a statement of it.

a reply to: marg6043

The private sector doesn't just have a hold, outside of the NSA, it's the new NSA. I blame Right wing practices completely for this. It's because of how much money they are willing to throw at a wall, and how things like a gay leader, make them feel inferior, so they continue to stockpile every area, Government, Corporate, Church, etc.

But lets spare the idea of a private company selling China our secrets, because they felt like it.

If you think taxes are bad, trust me, we REALLY can't afford the private NSA.

My company is paid for by TV ads, so it pays for itself, while it's spying on you. It's one of the only kind that operates like that, and gives the consumer a chance to protect themself, through a method they aren't even aware of. Google is doing similar things I hear now.

Eventually private corporations will have more real-time profiles than the government. Our company does already.